Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

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

Several individuals who had received grants of parole under programs established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela challenged the government’s decision to terminate those grants. The parole programs, created during the Biden Administration, allowed eligible individuals from these countries to enter the United States temporarily for up to two years, based on urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. When President Trump took office in January 2025, he issued executive orders directing DHS to end categorical parole programs, including the CHNV programs. DHS subsequently published a notice terminating the programs and revoking all existing grants of parole within thirty days, rather than allowing them to expire naturally.The plaintiffs, affected by the early termination, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court certified a class of affected individuals and granted a preliminary stay, preventing DHS from revoking their parole grants before the original expiration dates. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the categorical termination was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in part because the agency’s rationale rested on a legal error and failed to adequately consider reliance and humanitarian interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. The First Circuit held that the relevant statute requires DHS to grant parole only on a case-by-case basis, but does not impose the same limitation on the termination of parole. The court also found that the agency’s explanation for terminating the parole programs was not so deficient as to be arbitrary and capricious under the APA. Concluding that the plaintiffs had not made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the First Circuit vacated the district court’s stay and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Noem" on Justia Law

Peterson’s Oil Service, Inc. supplied heating fuel to customers in Massachusetts between 2012 and 2019. The fuel contained higher-than-standard levels of biodiesel, averaging 35% between 2015 and 2018, exceeding the 5% industry standard for ordinary heating oil. Customers alleged that this biodiesel-blended fuel was incompatible with conventional heating systems, caused repeated heat loss, and resulted in permanent damage to their equipment. They brought a class action in Massachusetts state court against Peterson’s and its officers, asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence, including allegations that Peterson’s continued supplying the fuel despite customer complaints and only later disclosed the high biodiesel content.United States Fire Insurance Company and The North River Insurance Company had issued Peterson’s a series of commercial general liability and umbrella policies. The insurers initially defended Peterson’s in the class action under a reservation of rights, then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that they owed no duty to defend or indemnify Peterson’s. The insurers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims did not arise from a covered “occurrence” and that policy provisions limiting or excluding coverage for failure to supply applied. The district court denied summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute as to whether Peterson’s actions were accidental and holding that the failure-to-supply provisions were ambiguous and did not apply.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The court held that the underlying complaint alleged a potentially covered “occurrence” because it was possible Peterson’s did not intend or expect the property damage alleged. The court also held that the failure-to-supply provisions were ambiguous and, under Massachusetts law, must be construed in favor of coverage. The district court’s summary judgment rulings were affirmed. View "United States Fire Insurance Company v. Peterson's Oil Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Customers of a heating oil company in Massachusetts brought a state court class action alleging that, starting in 2012, the company sold home heating oil with excessive biodiesel content, which damaged their heating equipment. The company received a demand letter and complaint in March 2019, before it was insured by the plaintiff insurance company. The insurance company began providing coverage in July 2019 under a commercial general liability policy and an umbrella policy. The policy included provisions excluding coverage for property damage known to the insured before the policy period began.After being asked to defend the company in the state class action, the insurer refused, arguing that the company’s prior knowledge of the alleged damage—based on the demand letter, complaint, and media coverage—triggered the policy’s known loss and loss-in-progress exclusions. The insurer then filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The state court class had two subclasses: customers who received oil before July 5, 2019, and those who first received oil after that date.The district court found that the insurer had no duty to defend claims by customers who received oil before the policy period, but did have a duty to defend claims by customers who first received oil after coverage began, since the company could not have known of damage that had not yet occurred. Applying the “in for one, in for all” rule, the court held the insurer must defend the entire suit. The court denied summary judgment for the insurer on the duty to defend and granted partial summary judgment to the insured.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s known loss and loss-in-progress provisions did not bar coverage for claims by customers whose property damage began after the policy period commenced, and thus the insurer has a duty to defend the entire class action. View "Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peterson's Oil Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Investors in a major drug-development company alleged that the company and two of its officers misled them about the integrity of the company’s overseas supply chain for long-tailed macaques, which are essential for its business. After China halted exports of these monkeys due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the company shifted to suppliers in Cambodia and Vietnam, some of which were later implicated in a federal investigation into illegal wildlife trafficking. Despite public signs of the investigation and seizures of shipments, the company’s CEO assured investors that its supply chain was unaffected by the federal indictment of certain suppliers, and that the indicted supplier was not one of its own. However, evidence suggested that the company was, in fact, sourcing macaques from entities targeted by the investigation, either directly or through intermediaries.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the investors’ class action complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any false or misleading statements or scienter (intent or recklessness), and therefore did not reach the issue of loss causation. The court also dismissed the derivative claim against the individual officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the investors plausibly alleged that the company and its CEO knowingly or recklessly misled investors in November 2022 by assuring them that the company’s supply chain was not implicated in the federal investigation, when in fact it was. The court found these statements actionable, but agreed with the lower court that other statements about “non-preferred vendors” were not independently misleading. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal as to the November 2022 statements and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of loss causation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio v. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI filed a lawsuit in September 2018 against Fresenius Medical Care Holdings and related entities, alleging negligence, product liability, and design defect claims related to the GranuFlo product used in hemodialysis treatments. The claims arose from a 2012 public memorandum by Fresenius that GranuFlo could lead to cardiopulmonary arrest. The plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations was tolled by a putative class action filed in 2013 (the Berzas action) in the Eastern District of Louisiana, which was later transferred to the District of Massachusetts as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL).The District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as time-barred, concluding that the Berzas action ceased to be a class action by June 2014 when the named plaintiffs filed Short Form Complaints or stipulations of dismissal, which did not include class allegations. The court also noted that the Berzas plaintiffs did not pursue class certification actively, and the case was administratively closed in April 2019.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The First Circuit held that the Berzas action lost its class action status by June 2014, and any tolling under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah ended at that time. The court reasoned that allowing indefinite tolling based on an inactive class certification request would contravene the principles of efficiency and economy in litigation. Therefore, the plaintiffs' 2018 complaint was untimely, and the district court's dismissal was upheld. View "MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and two other named plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit against defendants in a Massachusetts state court. Defendants successfully sought removal of the suit to a federal district court. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to most, but not all, of Plaintiff’s claims. At Plaintiffs’ urging, the court remanded the case to state court. Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the remand order, followed by a brief devoted to challenging the interlocutory order that dismissed most of his claims. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that Plaintiff waived his right to appeal because, if the order of remand was a final judgment, it was a final judgment to which Plaintiff affirmatively acquiesced without clearly reserving the right to appeal any ruling that may have merged into that judgment. View "Doran v. J. P. Noonan Transportation, Inc." on Justia Law

After the share price of a corporation’s common stock dropped, investors filed suit against the corporation and its former CEO, alleging securities fraud. The lead plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a putative class of shareholders, alleged that Defendants inflated the value of the corporation’s common stock by issuing false or materially misleading press releases concerning the approval of human clinical trials for a new medical device the company was developing. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to allege false or misleading statements sufficient to state a claim and that Plaintiff’s control person claim against the CEO was also properly dismissed. View "Ganem v. InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former and current tenants of residential property in Massachusetts leased to them by Defendants, challenged certain amenity use fees imposed by Defendants, alleging violations of the Massachusetts Security Deposit Statute and Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The underlying litigation was resolved with a complete settlement between the parties. This appeal concerned class counsel’s challenge to the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to them by the district court. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that neither the method utilized by the district court to arrive at the fee award nor the amount of the award itself constituted an abuse of discretion. View "Heien v. Archstone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased CVS-brand Vitamin E 400 International Units Softgels at a CVS in Plainview, New York. The bottle containing the product bore a label that advertised the product as supporting “heart health.” Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, claiming that there were no scientifically valid studies supporting the “heart health” statements. In her complaint, Plaintiff asserted a violation of the New York Consumer Protection Act (NYCPA) and a piggy-back common law claim of unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that federal law preempted Plaintiff’s effort to maintain this action under New York’s consumer protection law. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) neither federal nor state law posed any bar to recovery under NYCPA to the extent that recovery was predicated on a failure by CVS to comply with the requirements of Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act section 343(r); and (2) the complaint adequately alleged that the label’s statements were misleading in a manner that violated the requirements of section 343(r), and therefore, the unjust enrichment count was also not preempted. View "Kaufman v. CVS Caremark Corp." on Justia Law