Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, limited liability companies, filed class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland seeking relief under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) provisions. These provisions make Medicare a secondary payer when a beneficiary has other insurance coverage. Plaintiffs obtained assignments from Medicare Advantage Organizations and other secondary payers to seek reimbursement from primary payers like the defendants, Government Employees Insurance Company and its affiliates (GEICO). Plaintiffs had no preexisting interest in the claims and were compensated on a contingency basis.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied GEICO's motion to dismiss the case, which argued that the assignments were void as against Maryland public policy based on the doctrines of maintenance, champerty, and barratry. The court found no clear statement of Maryland law on this issue and certified questions to the Supreme Court of Maryland.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that Plaintiffs did not violate Maryland’s barratry statute, which prohibits soliciting another person to sue for personal gain without an existing relationship or interest. Plaintiffs did not solicit secondary payers to file lawsuits but obtained the right to sue in their own names through assignments. The court also held that the common law doctrines of maintenance, champerty, and barratry, to the extent they still apply, do not invalidate Plaintiffs’ assignments. The court concluded that the assignments are not void as against public policy and did not address the enforceability of choice-of-law provisions in the agreements. View "GEICO v. MAO-MSO Recovery II" on Justia Law

Janice Hollabaugh authorized her attorney to request her medical records from a health care provider for a personal injury claim. The provider contracted with MRO Corporation to fulfill the request. MRO sent a "Cancellation Invoice" to Hollabaugh’s attorney, stating that the request was canceled and charged a $22.88 fee for searching for the records, even though no records were produced. Hollabaugh reimbursed her attorney for the fee and subsequently filed a class action lawsuit against MRO, alleging that the fee violated the Confidentiality of Medical Records Act.The Circuit Court for Baltimore County determined that Hollabaugh had standing but concluded that the Act authorized MRO’s fee, leading to the dismissal of the case. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the standing decision but also upheld the fee's authorization under the Act. Hollabaugh then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland, which granted certiorari to review the case.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that Hollabaugh had standing to sue because she reimbursed her attorney for the fee, creating a reasonable inference of injury. The Court further held that the Confidentiality of Medical Records Act does not permit a health care provider to charge a preparation fee for a search that does not result in the production of any medical records. The Court reasoned that the statutory language and context imply that fees are only authorized for the retrieval and preparation of existing records. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision on standing but reversed the decision regarding the fee's authorization, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hollabaugh v. MRO Corporation" on Justia Law

Estefany Martinez, a former Amazon employee, worked as a Fulfillment Associate at the Baltimore Fulfillment Center from June 2017 to November 2021. She and other employees were required to clock out before undergoing a post-shift security screening process, for which they were not compensated. Martinez brought a backpack into the work area, which required her to use the bag scan lane during the security screening, often resulting in delays. Data showed that the time taken to exit the facility after clocking out varied, with some instances exceeding five minutes.Martinez filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which was later removed to federal court. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified a question to the Supreme Court of Maryland regarding the applicability of the de minimis doctrine to claims under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. The district court granted Martinez’s Motion for Class Certification and stayed the case pending the resolution of the certified question.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the de minimis doctrine, as described in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Company, applies to claims brought under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The court concluded that the doctrine, which disregards negligible periods of work time, is consistent with the legislative intent of the Maryland Wage Laws, which are patterned after the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court answered the certified question in the affirmative, confirming that the de minimis rule applies to the Maryland Wage Laws. View "Martinez v. Amazon" on Justia Law

The case involves two homebuyers, Wynton Sanders and Tosha Lindsey, who entered into contracts with SM Landover, LLC and SM Parkside, LLC, respectively, for the purchase of new homes. Both contracts included provisions for deferred water and sewer charges and a one-year statute of limitations for bringing any claims related to the contracts. The homebuyers later filed class action complaints alleging that the sellers failed to disclose required information about the deferred charges, as mandated by Maryland law.The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County consolidated the cases for pretrial purposes and dismissed the complaints with prejudice. The court found that the sellers did not need to register as home builders because Stanley Martin Companies, LLC, a registered home builder, was also a party to the contracts. The court also concluded that the homebuyers’ claims accrued at the time of contracting, making them time-barred under the one-year contractual limitations period.The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the one-year contractual limitations period was reasonable and that the homebuyers’ claims accrued at the time of settlement, not contracting. Therefore, the claims were timely. However, the court also held that the sellers did not need to register as home builders because a registered home builder was a party to the contracts.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the homebuyers’ claims accrued at the time of contracting. The court also held that the sellers were required to register as home builders under Maryland law, even though a registered home builder was a party to the contracts. Consequently, the sellers could not enforce the one-year contractual limitations period, making the homebuyers’ claims timely. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland. View "SM Landover LLC v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Maryland has ruled that the term "rent" under Real Property § 8-401, as applied to residential leases, refers to the fixed, periodic payments a tenant is required to make for use or occupancy of a rented premises. This definition excludes additional charges such as late fees, attorney’s fees, and court costs. The court also ruled that any provision in a residential lease that allows a landlord to allocate payments of "rent" to other obligations, thereby subjecting a tenant to eviction proceedings based on failure to pay "rent", violates Real Property § 8-208(d)(2). Further, penalties for late payment of rent, capped at 5% of the monthly amount of rent due, are inclusive of any costs of collection other than court-awarded costs. Finally, the court ruled that the Circuit Court erred in declining to review the merits of the tenants’ second renewed motion for class certification. The case has been remanded for further proceedings in line with these holdings. View "Westminster Management v. Smith" on Justia Law