Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, representing themselves and a putative class, purchased Kleenex Germ Removal Wet Wipes manufactured by Kimberly-Clark Corporation. They alleged that the product’s labeling misled consumers into believing the wipes contained germicides and would kill germs, rather than merely wiping them away with soap. Plaintiffs claimed that this misrepresentation violated several California consumer protection statutes. The wipes were sold nationwide, and the plaintiffs included both California and non-California residents.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California first dismissed the non-California plaintiffs’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the labels would not plausibly deceive a reasonable consumer. The court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) without leave to amend, and plaintiffs appealed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed under diversity jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1332(d)(2). The court found that the SAC failed to allege Kimberly-Clark’s citizenship and did not state the amount in controversy. The panel held that diversity of citizenship cannot be established by judicial notice alone and that the complaint must affirmatively allege the amount in controversy. Plaintiffs were permitted to submit a proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC), which successfully alleged diversity of citizenship but failed to plausibly allege the required amount in controversy for either statutory basis. The court concluded that neither it nor the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and vacated the district court’s judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. The panel denied further leave to amend, finding that additional amendment would be futile. View "ROSENWALD V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION" on Justia Law

A borrower in Rhode Island financed a home purchase with a mortgage from a national bank. The mortgage required the borrower to make advance payments for property taxes and insurance into an escrow account managed by the bank. The bank did not pay interest on these escrowed funds, despite a Rhode Island statute mandating that banks pay interest on such accounts. Years later, the borrower filed a class action lawsuit against the bank, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment for failing to pay the required interest under state law.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the bank that the National Bank Act preempted the Rhode Island statute. The court reasoned that the state law imposed limits on the bank’s federal powers, specifically the power to establish escrow accounts, and thus significantly interfered with the bank’s incidental powers under federal law. The court did not address class certification or the merits of the unjust enrichment claim, focusing solely on preemption.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., which clarified the standard for preemption under the National Bank Act. The First Circuit held that the district court erred by not applying the nuanced, comparative analysis required by Cantero. The appellate court found that the bank failed to show that the Rhode Island statute significantly interfered with its federal banking powers or conflicted with the federal regulatory scheme. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the borrower’s claims to proceed. View "Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A property management company operating several apartment buildings in Missoula County contracted with a waste management provider for “three-yard” dumpster service. After the expiration of their initial service agreement, the provider continued to supply waste removal services on an invoice-by-invoice basis. The property management company later discovered that many of the dumpsters labeled as “three-yard” actually had a capacity of less than three cubic yards, with one model measuring approximately 2.52 cubic yards. The waste management provider rotated these containers among customers and did not maintain records of which customers received which models. The property management company alleged that it was charged overage fees for exceeding the stated capacity of these undersized containers.The property management company filed suit in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, asserting claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, and sought to represent a class of similarly situated customers. The District Court bifurcated discovery and, after briefing and oral argument, certified two classes: one for breach of contract and one for negligent misrepresentation, both defined as customers who paid for “three-yard” service but received dumpsters of 2.6 cubic yards or less. The District Court found that common questions predominated over individual issues and that class litigation was superior to individual actions.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in finding predominance of common questions and whether it erred by not considering the ascertainability of class members. The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the classes, as common questions regarding the provider’s contractual and legal obligations predominated, and individualized damages did not preclude certification. The Court also held that ascertainability is not a mandatory requirement under Montana’s class action rule. The District Court’s order granting class certification was affirmed. View "Allied Waste v. LH Residential" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, two individuals who held automobile insurance policies with a major insurer in California alleged that the insurer’s rates became excessive due to a significant reduction in driving and traffic accidents. They claimed that the insurer was required by statute to refund a portion of the premiums collected during this period, even though the rates had previously been approved by the state’s insurance commissioner. The insurer did provide partial refunds in response to directives from the insurance commissioner, but the plaintiffs argued these refunds were insufficient and sought further restitution on behalf of a class of similarly situated policyholders.The Superior Court of Alameda County initially allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint after sustaining a demurrer. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs continued to assert claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and for unjust enrichment, maintaining that the insurer’s failure to provide full refunds violated Insurance Code section 1861.05(a). The trial court, however, sustained the insurer’s subsequent demurrer without leave to amend, holding that the statutory scheme did not require insurers to retroactively refund premiums collected under previously approved rates, even if those rates later became excessive due to changed circumstances.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case on appeal. The court held that Insurance Code section 1861.05(a) does not impose an independent obligation on insurers to retroactively refund premiums collected under rates approved by the insurance commissioner, even if those rates later become excessive. The court reasoned that the statutory scheme provides for prospective rate adjustments through the commissioner’s review process, not retroactive modifications. The court also found that the insurer’s conduct was affirmatively permitted under the statutory “prior approval” system, and thus not actionable under the Unfair Competition Law. The judgment in favor of the insurer was affirmed. View "Davis v. CSAA Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

After purchasing a collectible from an online retailer, the plaintiff was charged multiple times through his PayPal account for additional items he alleges he did not knowingly subscribe to. He filed a putative class action in California state court against the retailer, asserting claims under California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. Importantly, he sought only equitable restitution and did not pursue damages, even though he conceded that damages were available under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act, which was not disputed as a proper basis for federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff then moved to remand, arguing that the federal court lacked “equitable jurisdiction” because he had an adequate remedy at law available, even though he chose not to pursue it. The district court agreed, holding that it could remand for lack of equitable jurisdiction and that the defendant could not waive the defense that an adequate legal remedy was available.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that district courts do have the authority to remand a removed case to state court for lack of equitable jurisdiction. However, the Ninth Circuit further held that a defendant may waive the adequate-remedy-at-law defense in order to keep the case in federal court. The court vacated the district court’s remand order and sent the case back to allow the defendant the opportunity to perfect its waiver. If the defendant waives the defense, the case may proceed in federal court. View "RUIZ V. THE BRADFORD EXCHANGE, LTD." on Justia Law

Ashley Popa visited a website operated by PSP Group LLC, which used a session-replay technology called “Clarity,” owned by Microsoft Corporation. This technology recorded users’ interactions with the website, including mouse movements, clicks, and some text inputs. Popa alleged that Clarity collected information such as her browsing activity and partial address details, and that this data was used to recreate her visit for analysis by PSP. She filed a putative class action, claiming violations of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) and intrusion upon seclusion.Popa initially filed her complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, later amending it. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Both defendants moved to dismiss; PSP argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, while Microsoft moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court found that Popa failed to establish Article III standing, concluding that the information collected did not constitute the type of private information historically protected by law. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and denied Microsoft’s motion as moot.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that Popa did not allege a “concrete” injury sufficient for Article III standing, as required by TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. The court found that the alleged harm was not analogous to common-law privacy torts such as intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of private facts, as Popa did not identify any highly offensive or private information collected. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Popa v. Microsoft Corp." on Justia Law

A food and beverage server brought a class action lawsuit against several hotel and resort entities, alleging that from 2010 to 2016, the hotels imposed service charges on customers but failed to distribute the full amount of those charges as gratuities to employees. Instead, the hotels retained a portion of the service charges without clearly informing customers that not all of the service charge would go to employees as tips. The disclosures provided by the hotels during this period stated that “a portion” of the service fee was allocated to employees as “tips or wages” and another portion to cover other costs, but did not specify the exact amount or percentage distributed to employees.In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, both parties moved for summary judgment. The circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the hotels’ disclosures were insufficient because they did not specify the portion of the service charge distributed to employees. The hotels appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed the circuit court’s decision. The ICA held that the statute did not require disclosure of the specific amount or percentage distributed to employees and that the hotels’ disclosures were sufficient.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that the ICA erred in concluding the hotels’ disclosures satisfied Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 481B-14. The court determined that merely reciting statutory language or stating that “a portion” of the service charge goes to employees is ambiguous and does not clearly inform consumers. The court held that when only part of a service charge is distributed as tips, the employer must disclose the amount or percentage paid to employees. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment, affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez v. Mauna Kea Resort LLC." on Justia Law

George Jackson purchased a RainSoft home water treatment system from Carolina Water Systems, which operated as an authorized service provider for Home Depot in North Carolina and South Carolina. At the time of purchase, Carolina Water Systems was running a promotion that offered customers rebates or refunds for referring other potential buyers, with the possibility of a full refund for sufficient referrals. Jackson later defaulted on payments for the system, leading to a debt-collection action by Citibank. In response, Jackson argued that his debt was void under North Carolina’s referral statute, which prohibits sales promotions offering consideration for customer referrals. He subsequently brought a putative class action against the defendants, seeking relief for himself and others who purchased systems during the promotion.After preliminary issues were resolved, including a federal court removal and arbitration challenges, Jackson moved in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County to certify a class of all purchasers of RainSoft systems from the defendants between November 2012 and November 2016. The trial court granted class certification, finding that the requirements for class actions were met and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the class certification order. The Court held that North Carolina’s referral statute does not require proof that the illegal sales promotion induced each buyer to make a purchase, thus supporting class certification for North Carolina residents. However, the Court found that South Carolina’s referral statute does require inducement, which would necessitate individualized inquiries and defeat the predominance requirement for class certification. Therefore, the Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Russell Johnson, a resident of a continuing care retirement community operated by Stoneridge Creek, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Stoneridge Creek unlawfully increased residents’ monthly care fees to cover its anticipated legal defense costs in ongoing litigation. Johnson claimed these increases violated several statutes, including the Health and Safety Code, the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Elder Abuse Act, and breached the Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) between residents and Stoneridge Creek. The RCA allowed Stoneridge Creek to adjust monthly fees based on projected costs, prior year per capita costs, and economic indicators. In recent years, Stoneridge Creek’s budgets for legal fees rose sharply, with $500,000 allocated for 2023 and 2024, compared to much lower amounts in prior years.The Alameda County Superior Court previously denied Stoneridge Creek’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the RCA’s arbitration provision unconscionable. Johnson then moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Stoneridge Creek from including its litigation defense costs in monthly fee increases. The trial court granted the injunction, finding a likelihood of success on Johnson’s claims under the CLRA and UCL, and determined that the fee increases were retaliatory and unlawfully shifted defense costs to residents. The court also ordered Johnson to post a $1,000 bond.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the fee increases did not violate the CLRA’s fee-recovery provision or other litigation fee-shifting statutes, as these statutes govern judicial awards of fees, not how a defendant funds its own legal expenses. The court further concluded that Health and Safety Code section 1788(a)(22)(B) permits Stoneridge Creek to include reasonable projections of litigation expenses in monthly fees. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider whether the fee increases were retaliatory or excessive, and to reassess the balance of harms and the appropriate bond amount. View "Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC" on Justia Law

An individual whose nursing license was revoked in 2011 was subsequently excluded from participating in federally funded health care programs, a status that remains ongoing. When she later applied for a job involving health care consulting, the prospective employer requested a background check from a consumer reporting agency. The agency’s report disclosed both her current exclusion from federal health care programs and the fact that her license had been revoked in 2011. As a result, her job offer was rescinded. She disputed the report but was unsuccessful.She then filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that the agency violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by including adverse information more than seven years old in its report. The district court granted summary judgment for the agency, holding that reporting the ongoing exclusion was permissible because it was a continuing event, and that reporting the reason for the exclusion (the license revocation) was also allowed. The court further found that, even if there was a violation, the agency’s interpretation of the FCRA was not objectively unreasonable, so there was no negligent or willful violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the agency did not violate the FCRA by reporting the ongoing exclusion, as such exclusions may be reported for their duration and for seven years after they end. However, the court found that reporting the underlying license revocation, which occurred more than seven years before the report, did violate the FCRA. Despite this, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment because the agency’s interpretation of the statute was not objectively unreasonable, and thus its violation was neither negligent nor willful. View "Grijalva v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc." on Justia Law