Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Glacier County taxpayers, alleged that the County and its Commissioners unlawfully made expenditures or disbursements of public funds or incurred obligations in excess of total appropriations, violating Montana law. The case originated from a 2015 lawsuit by Plaintiff Elaine Mitchell, who claimed the County and State failed to comply with the Single Audit Act and the Local Government Budget Act. An independent audit revealed deficit balances in many county funds, prompting the lawsuit. The plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including declarations of non-compliance with accounting standards and laws ensuring government financial accountability.The Ninth Judicial District Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the issue of the County's improper liquidation of a tax protest fund. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to certify Count II as a class action, which the District Court granted, defining the class as property taxpayers of Glacier County who paid taxes from 2012 to 2020. The County appealed the class certification order and the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of standing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decisions. The Court held that Plaintiffs had standing, as they alleged concrete economic injuries from the County's actions, such as increased tax obligations and loss of county services. The Court also found that the class met the prerequisites for certification under M. R. Civ. P. 23(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. The Court ruled that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual questions, making a class action the superior method for adjudicating the controversy. The class certification was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Gottlob v. DesRosier" on Justia Law

Three Coast Guard servicemembers, Eric Jackson, Alaric Stone, and Michael Marcenelle, objected to a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security. Their requests for religious accommodations were denied, and they faced reprimands for refusing the vaccination. They filed a class action lawsuit against the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Assistant Commandant for Human Resources, alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case as moot after the Department of Defense rescinded its vaccination mandate, and the Coast Guard followed suit. The Plaintiffs' motion for relief from final judgment was also denied, leading to their appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal de novo. The appellate court found that the case was not moot because the Coast Guard had not issued policies protecting unvaccinated servicemembers from discrimination, unlike the Navy, which had implemented such protections. The court noted that the Plaintiffs could still face adverse actions based on their vaccination status and that a court order could provide effective relief. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Noem" on Justia Law

The City of East Lansing entered into an agreement with the Lansing Board of Water and Light (LBWL) in 2016, which included a franchise fee to be charged to LBWL consumers residing within the City. The fee was collected by LBWL and remitted to the City. Plaintiff James Heos, representing a class of LBWL consumers, filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the franchise fee was an illegal tax under the Michigan Constitution's Headlee Amendment and other state laws.The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff on most counts, ruling that the franchise fee was an illegal tax. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed this decision, directing the trial court to grant summary disposition in favor of the City, concluding that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer and thus his claim was time-barred.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the franchise fee was indeed a tax because it was used for general revenue-raising purposes, was not proportionate to any costs incurred by the City, and was not voluntary. The Court further held that the plaintiff was a taxpayer because the legal incidence of the fee fell on the LBWL consumers, not LBWL itself. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to pursue his Headlee Amendment claim. View "Heos v. City Of East Lansing" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of individuals, filed mortgage foreclosure complaints in Illinois circuit courts and paid "add-on" filing fees mandated by section 15-1504.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They challenged the constitutionality of these fees, asserting that the statute violated the free access clause of the Illinois Constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court previously agreed, declaring the statute unconstitutional and affirming an injunction against its enforcement.The Will County circuit court initially certified the class and granted partial summary judgment, finding the statute unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed, and the case was remanded. On remand, plaintiffs pursued a refund of the fees. The circuit court dismissed the refund claim, citing sovereign immunity, which bars claims against the State. The appellate court reversed, holding that the circuit court had jurisdiction under the officer-suit exception to sovereign immunity, which allows suits against state officials for unconstitutional actions.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that while the officer-suit exception allowed the circuit court to enjoin the enforcement of the unconstitutional statute, it did not apply to the refund claim. The court determined that the refund claim was a retrospective monetary award to redress a past wrong, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, not the circuit court. Consequently, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the refund claim. View "Walker v. Chasteen" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of a statutory provision requiring the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC) to provide immediate temporary emergency shelter to families who appear to be eligible based on their statements and information already in the agency's possession. The plaintiffs, representing a class of individuals, argued that HLC's requirement for third-party verification of identity, familial relationship, and Massachusetts residency at the time of initial application for emergency assistance shelter was contrary to the statutory language.The Superior Court judge ruled that HLC could not require third-party verification of Massachusetts residency but could require verification of family status and identity, except for pregnant women. Both parties appealed this decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that the plain language of the statutory provision did not permit HLC to require third-party verification at the time of initial application. The court emphasized that the statute mandates immediate provision of shelter based on the family's statements and information in HLC's possession, without delay. The court found that the requirement for third-party verification at the initial application stage would contradict the statute's intent to provide immediate temporary shelter to those in need.The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment to the extent it allowed HLC to require third-party verifications before providing shelter under the immediate placement proviso. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Garcia v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities" on Justia Law

The case involves veterans' benefits appeals that were erroneously deactivated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) due to a computer program error. The VA operates two adjudicatory systems for benefits claims, and the legacy system is relevant here. Under this system, a claimant must file a Notice of Disagreement and, if unresolved, a Substantive Appeal. The VA's electronic database, VACOLS, automatically closed appeals if no timely Substantive Appeal was noted, leading to approximately 3,000 erroneously closed appeals. This affected U.S. Army veterans J. Roni Freund and Marvin Mathewson, whose successors are the named petitioners in this class action.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed the petitions and denied class certification. The court found the case moot as to the individual petitioners after the VA reactivated their appeals. It also held that the petitioners failed to meet the commonality and adequacy requirements for class certification under Rule 23. The court did not address whether the case was moot as to the class or the superiority of class resolution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Veterans Court abused its discretion in its commonality and adequacy findings. The Federal Circuit held that the inherently transitory exception to mootness applied, as the VA's practice of reactivating appeals quickly made it likely that individual claims would become moot before class certification could be ruled upon. The court also rejected the Secretary's argument that the class was not ascertainable due to the difficulty in identifying class members.The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court's order denying class certification and remanded the case for further consideration of class certification and appropriate relief. View "FREUND v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

A consumer of a glucosamine-based dietary supplement filed a putative class action lawsuit against the supplement’s manufacturer and retailer under New York law. The plaintiff alleged that the supplement was mislabeled because it contained a different formulation of glucosamine than what was displayed on the front of the label and disclosed as the main ingredient on the side. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the product contained blended glucosamine rather than single-crystal glucosamine, which she believed to be more effective for alleviating joint pain.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment for the defendants on federal preemption grounds. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s state law mislabeling claims were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which establishes national standards for the labeling of dietary supplements. The district court found that the FDCA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme and its broad preemption clauses foreclosed the plaintiff’s state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff’s state law mislabeling claims were expressly preempted by the FDCA. The court reasoned that the FDCA preempts any state law that imposes labeling requirements not identical to those set forth in the FDCA and its regulations. The court found that the product’s labeling complied with the FDCA’s requirements, as the dietary ingredient “glucosamine sulfate potassium chloride” was identified using methods endorsed by the FDA. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims were preempted, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jackson-Mau v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Harold Malmquist against the City of Folsom (City). The plaintiff alleged that the City failed to maintain proper corrosion control measures at its water treatment plant, causing the pH level of its water to rise and become corrosive. This, in turn, led to pinhole leaks in copper pipes receiving the water, damaging persons and property. The plaintiff sought class certification, defining the class as all individuals and entities who have owned or leased real property in the City, plumbed with copper piping receiving water from the City’s plant since February 23, 2015.The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court found that the plaintiff had not shown that common issues predominated over individual ones. The court reasoned that the existence, cause, and extent of damage to copper piping required individual proof. The court also overruled the plaintiff's objections to the City's expert witness, concluding that the expert was qualified and his opinion was founded on reliable information.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. The court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that individual issues predominated over common ones. The court also found no error in the trial court's decision to overrule the plaintiff's objections to the City's expert witness. The court concluded that the expert was qualified and his opinion was founded on reliable information. View "Malmquist v. City of Folsom" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit brought against the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) by four parents who were convicted of sex offenses and were on mandatory supervised release (MSR). The plaintiffs challenged an IDOC policy that restricts contact between a parent convicted of a sex offense and their minor child while the parent is on MSR. The plaintiffs argued that this policy violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process.The district court upheld the policy, with two exceptions. It ruled that the policy's ban on written communications was unconstitutional and that IDOC must allow a parent to submit a written communication addressed to their child for review and decision within seven calendar days. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the policy's restrictions on phone and in-person contact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that the policy does not violate procedural due process. However, it held that the policy's ban on phone contact violates substantive due process. The court found that call monitoring is a ready alternative to the phone-contact ban that accommodates the plaintiffs’ right to enjoy the companionship of their children at a de minimis cost to IDOC’s penological interests. View "Montoya v. Jeffreys" on Justia Law

In a class action suit, the plaintiffs, a group of patients, alleged that the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (Penn), who operate the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine), were in violation of Pennsylvania privacy law. The plaintiffs claimed that Penn Medicine shared sensitive health information and online activity of its patients with Facebook through its patient portal. Penn removed the case to federal court, asserting that it was "acting under" the federal government, referencing the federal-officer removal statute. However, the District Court rejected this argument and returned the case to state court.This case was primarily focused on whether Penn was "acting under" the federal government in its operation of Penn Medicine's patient portal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to remand the case back to state court. The Court of Appeals determined that Penn was not "acting under" the federal government, as it did not demonstrate that it was performing a delegated governmental task. The court declared that Penn was merely complying with federal laws and regulations, which does not qualify as "acting under" the federal government. The court noted that just because a private party has a contractual relationship with the federal government does not mean that it is "acting under" the federal authority. In conclusion, the court determined that the relationship between Penn and the federal government did not meet the requirements for Penn to be considered as "acting under" the federal government, thus the case was correctly returned to state court. View "Mohr v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law