Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants issued consumer credit reports with negative entries for debts already discharged in bankruptcy. On appeal, plaintiffs and objectors challenged the district court's approval of a class-action settlement that granted incentive awards to the class representatives for their services to the class. The settlement agreement conditioned payment of incentive awards on the class representatives' support for the settlement. These conditional incentive awards caused the interests of the class representatives to diverge from the interests of the class because the settlement agreement told class representatives that they would not receive incentive awards unless they supported the settlement. Moreover, the conditional incentive awards significantly exceeded in amount what absent class members could expect to get upon settlement approval. Because these circumstances created a patent divergence of interests between the named representatives and the class, the court concluded that the class representatives and class counsel did not adequately represent the absent class members. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's approval of the settlement. View "Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of brokerage firms, filed four class actions challenging California's forced-patronage statute, section 450(a) of the California Labor Code. At issue was whether federal securities law preempted the enforcement of California's forced-patronage statute against brokerage houses that forbid their employees from opening outside trading accounts. The court affirmed the judgment and concluded that the district court correctly determined that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78o(g), and related self-regulatory organizations (SROs) rules preempted plaintiffs' forced-patronage suits. View "McDaniel, et al v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Crevier Motors and BMW, asserting ten California causes of action. At issue was whether BMW timely removed this proposed class action involving Crevier, a California automobile dealership, to federal court by invoking the diversity jurisdiction provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Because nothing in plaintiff's complaint indicated that the amount demanded by each putative class member exceeded $25,000, it fell short of triggering the removal clock under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). The court rejected plaintiff's remaining arguments. Because BMW timely removed under section 1446(b), the court reversed the district court's remand of plaintiff's proposed class action to Orange County Superior Court. In light of that conclusion, the court did not decide whether to join the other circuits in recognizing a "revival exception," which according to BMW gave it another thirty days to remove when plaintiff expanded her suit from one strictly against Crevier to one against all California-BMW dealerships. View "Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services NA LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a California resident, brought a putative class action against ADT in California Superior Court, alleging that ADT recorded his telephone conversation with an ADT representative without his consent in violation of Section 632 of California's invasion of privacy law, Cal. Penal Code 632. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on diversity grounds. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that plaintiff's pleadings failed to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted. The court remanded, however, in order to give plaintiff an opportunity to seek to amend his complaint to successfully plead a cause of action under the federal standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. View "Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased variable universal life insurance policies from defendant. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a class action suit against defendant under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), 15 U.S.C. 78bb(f)(1), for levying excessive cost of insurance charges. The court concluded that claims of breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing were not precluded by SLUSA, even if such claims related to the purchase or sale of a covered security. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the two contract claims, on the condition that plaintiffs amend their complaint to remove any reference to deliberate concealment or fraudulent omission. The court affirmed the dismissal of the class claim for unfair competition in violation of California law. View "Freeman Investments, L.P., et al v. Pacific Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

National Elevator, lead plaintiff on behalf of investors who purchased VeriFone stock, appealed the dismissal of its securities fraud class action. National Elevator alleged that VeriFone, the CEO and former Chairman of the Board of Directors, and the company's former CFO and Executive Vice President, violated sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t-1(a), and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10-b, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5(b), in connection with a December 2007 restatement of financial results. The court held that National Elevator adequately pleaded violations of section 10B and Rule 10b as to all defendants; its section 20A claim against the individual defendants was sufficiently pled; but the section 20(a) claim was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "National Elevator Industry Pension Fund v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, argued that a series of automated telephone calls placed to his home by Best Buy violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, and the Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device Act (WADAD), Wash. Rev. Code 80.36.400. The court concluded that these calls were aimed at encouraging listeners to engage in future commercial transactions with Best Buy to purchase its goods. They constituted unsolicited advertisements, telephone solicitations, and telemarketing, and were prohibited by the TCPA, the WADAD, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code 80.36.400(3). View "Chesbro v. Best Buy Co., Inc." on Justia Law

PRA appealed the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that PRA's debt collection efforts violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue the order; the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a provisional class for purposes of the preliminary injunction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., et al" on Justia Law

In this putative class action, plaintiff alleged that HSBC and Best Buy (collectively, defendants) defrauded California customers by offering credit cards without adequately disclosing that cardholders would be subject to an annual fee. At issue was whether the district court erred when it considered extrinsic evidence in deciding defendants' motion to dismiss, and whether dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that the district court properly incorporated the disclosure documents at issue and the court affirmed its order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. View "Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

These thirteen consolidated appeals brought by class counsel and six groups of objectors (collectively, Objectors) challenged the district court's decisions regarding attorney fee awards after the settlement of an antitrust class action against West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan, Inc. In this opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed nine separate appeals challenging the propriety of the district court's decision to deny attorneys' fees to class counsel McGuireWoods on account of a conflict of interest and to deny fees to objectors for their efforts in securing that decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that because the district court's decisions were not legally erroneous, the respective fee orders were affirmed, with the exception of the order denying fees to the Schneider Objectors, which the Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez v. Disner" on Justia Law