Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, who were investors in a pharmaceutical company, brought a putative class action alleging securities fraud. The company had developed a drug to treat geographic atrophy, a form of age-related macular degeneration, and conducted two large clinical trials (OAKS and DERBY) before the drug's approval by the FDA. During the class period, company representatives publicly stated that there were no observed cases of retinal vasculitis, a serious eye condition, among trial participants. After the drug's commercialization, new reports emerged of retinal vasculitis in patients treated with the drug, leading to a decline in the company’s stock price and the addition of a warning to the drug’s label.The action was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs argued that the company's statements were misleading half-truths because the clinical trials were not specifically designed to detect retinal vasculitis, and this limitation was not disclosed to investors. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the statements were not materially misleading and that there was no sufficient allegation of scienter (intent to defraud). The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the motion, holding that the omissions were not actionable because the relevant trial protocols and methodologies had been publicly disclosed and disagreements over scientific methodology do not support securities fraud claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the company’s statements were not materially misleading because the information regarding the trial protocols, including when and how retinal vasculitis could be detected, was publicly available. The court concluded that no material misrepresentation or actionable omission had occurred, and thus affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "In Re: Apellis Pharm., Inc. Securities Litigation" on Justia Law

A group of small merchants, including a store in Rhode Island, entered into arbitration agreements with a credit card company, which required arbitration of disputes before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). In August 2023, these merchants initiated thousands of arbitration proceedings against the company, challenging certain “swipe-fee” policies that they argued harmed small businesses. A dispute arose over the filing fees that the credit card company owed to the AAA. The AAA administrator determined the applicable fees and repeatedly warned both parties that the arbitrations would be administratively closed if the fees were not paid. The merchants paid their share of the fees, but the credit card company refused to pay, contesting the fee amount. As a result, in late February 2024, the AAA administratively closed the arbitrations.Subsequently, the merchants filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, arguing that the company’s refusal to pay arbitration fees constituted a default and waiver of its right to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The credit card company moved to stay the litigation and compel arbitration. The District Court denied the motion, finding that the company had defaulted and waived its arbitration rights by failing to pay the required fees, and rejected the company’s argument that the merchants had acted with unclean hands.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court had the authority to decide whether the company’s conduct amounted to waiver or default under the FAA, and that the company’s deliberate refusal to pay arbitration fees, despite repeated warnings, constituted waiver and default. The First Circuit also found no error in the district court’s rejection of the unclean hands defense. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to stay and compel arbitration. View "5-Star General Store v. American Express Company" on Justia Law

A Salvadoran national entered the United States without inspection in 2013 and lived in Massachusetts. In September 2025, he was arrested by immigration authorities during a vehicle stop and placed in removal proceedings, charged as inadmissible for being present without admission or valid documentation. Under longstanding practice, individuals in his situation could seek release from detention on bond while their removal cases were pending. However, in July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance, later adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, that mandatory detention without bond applied to all noncitizens present in the U.S. without admission, shifting the legal framework and increasing the detained population.After his arrest, the individual challenged his detention without a bond hearing by filing a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, requiring his release or a bond hearing, and later certified a class action for similarly situated noncitizens. The district court ultimately held that the new DHS policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), finding that those present in the United States without admission were entitled to bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the INA requires mandatory detention without bond for noncitizens present in the country without admission, or if they are eligible for bond hearings. The First Circuit held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens "seeking admission"—that is, those seeking lawful entry at the border—not those already present after unlawful entry. Accordingly, detention and bond eligibility for class members are governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), and the district court’s order was affirmed. View "Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz" on Justia Law

A robotics company, whose primary product is a well-known robot vacuum, agreed in August 2022 to be acquired by a major online retailer. Over the next eighteen months, the companies sought approval for the merger from regulatory authorities in the United States and Europe. In January 2024, facing significant regulatory obstacles, the parties abandoned the merger. Following this, shareholders of the robotics company, led by an investment fund, brought a securities fraud class action against the company’s CEO and CFO. They alleged that during the merger’s review period, company statements misrepresented or omitted material information regarding the likelihood of regulatory approval, particularly concerning the company’s expectation of approval and the acquirer’s cooperation with regulators.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to identify any actionable material misrepresentation or omission and did not adequately allege scienter (the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing). During the appeal, the robotics company entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, resulting in its dismissal from the appeal, which continued as to the individual defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed with the district court that the complaint failed to state a claim for most of the statements challenged by the plaintiffs, affirming dismissal as to those. However, the court found that the amended complaint plausibly alleged that an August 24, 2023, proxy statement expressed an opinion about expected regulatory approval while omitting important contrary information regarding European regulatory concerns and the acquirer’s refusal to cooperate. This omission, in the circumstances, was sufficient to state a claim as to that statement. The dismissal was reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Premca Extra Income Fund LP v. Angle" on Justia Law

An employee of the Falmouth Public Schools in Maine, enrolled in a health insurance plan administered by Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc., challenged the plan’s exclusion of coverage for weight-loss medications. After being diagnosed with obesity and prescribed FDA-approved weight-loss drugs, the employee’s requests for coverage were repeatedly denied. Her medical providers appealed to Anthem, supporting the necessity of the medication, but Anthem maintained its denial, citing the plan’s explicit exclusion of weight-loss medications regardless of obesity diagnosis.The employee, on behalf of herself and a proposed class, sued Anthem’s parent company, Elevance Health, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. She alleged that the exclusion constituted disability discrimination under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which incorporates the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Elevance moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to plausibly allege disability discrimination. The district court granted the motion, reasoning that the exclusion applied to all enrollees, regardless of disability status, and did not target disabled individuals for discriminatory treatment. The court found the allegations of discrimination to be conclusory and insufficient to support claims of intentional, proxy, or disparate impact discrimination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the exclusion of weight-loss medication coverage constituted discrimination under Section 1557. The court concluded that the exclusion was facially neutral, did not serve as a proxy for disability discrimination, and did not result in a lack of meaningful access to plan benefits for disabled individuals. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging the Massachusetts Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He alleged that the Act’s provisions regarding payment of interest on unclaimed property resulted in an uncompensated taking of his private property for public use. The plaintiff’s complaint included evidence that the state held property in his name, but did not explain his connection to the listed address or further describe the property. He had not filed a claim to recover the property through the statutory process.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief since he did not demonstrate any future harm, and that the Commonwealth had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Takings Clause, reasoning in part that the statute provides a mechanism for reclaiming the property in full and that any taking resulted from the plaintiff’s own neglect. The district court did not address the ripeness argument raised by the Treasurer.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that if the plaintiff’s challenge was to the statutory interest rate, his claim was not ripe, as he had not yet made a claim for the property or been denied interest. Alternatively, if the claim was that a taking had already occurred when the state took possession, he lacked standing to seek prospective relief because any injury was in the past and not ongoing. The court thus affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction. View "Narrigan v. Goldberg" on Justia Law

Abdulkadir Abdisalam worked as a courier delivering medical supplies for a company that classified its couriers as independent contractors. To work for the company, Abdisalam was required to form his own corporation, Abdul Courier, LLC, which then entered into a contract with the company. This contract included an arbitration provision requiring disputes to be arbitrated. Abdisalam signed the contract as the owner of his corporation, not in his individual capacity. After several years of providing courier services, Abdisalam alleged that the company misclassified him and others as independent contractors and failed to pay them proper wages, in violation of Massachusetts law. He filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of couriers seeking remedies under Massachusetts statutes.The company removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in its contract with Abdul Courier, LLC. The district court denied the motion, finding that Abdisalam, having signed only as the owner of the LLC and not in his personal capacity, was not bound by the contract’s arbitration clause. The court also rejected the company’s arguments that Abdisalam should be compelled to arbitrate under theories of direct benefits estoppel, intertwined claims estoppel, or as a successor in interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The First Circuit held that, under Massachusetts law, it was for the court—not an arbitrator—to decide whether Abdisalam was bound by the arbitration agreement. The court further held that Abdisalam, as a nonsignatory to the agreement in his personal capacity, was not bound by its arbitration provision, and none of the equitable estoppel or successor theories advanced by the defendant provided a basis to compel arbitration. View "Abdisalam v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Two individuals each owned companies that distributed snack foods for a larger food company. Years earlier, they had joined a class action lawsuit claiming that the company misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees. That class action ended in a settlement, which included an optional provision: class members could agree to arbitrate future disputes in exchange for an additional payment. Both individuals opted into that provision and accepted the payment, thereby agreeing to resolve future disputes through arbitration.Several years later, the two individuals brought a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, again asserting claims related to alleged misclassification and seeking damages. The defendant company moved to stay the case and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), citing the prior agreement. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers under Section 1. The district court rejected that exemption argument, but did not order arbitration. Instead, it stayed and administratively closed the case without entering judgment, stating it was not compelling arbitration but was closing its doors to further proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s handling. The court held that, although the district court did not expressly deny the motion to compel arbitration, its actions amounted to a denial, and thus appellate jurisdiction existed under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to determine whether the motion to compel arbitration should be granted or denied and to explain its reasoning. The court also clarified that, under the parties’ agreement, any compelled arbitration must proceed on an individual, not class, basis. View "Perruzzi v. The Campbell's Company" on Justia Law

A group of former employees at a luxury hotel in Lenox, Massachusetts brought a series of lawsuits against the hotel and its operators, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts wage laws. The claims primarily involved misclassification as overtime-exempt, failure to pay minimum wage, mismanagement of tip pools, and other wage-related violations. One plaintiff, after successfully certifying a class of similarly situated employees, joined with others to negotiate a global settlement with the hotel’s owners.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, acting through a magistrate judge, oversaw the coordinated settlement negotiations for four related cases—three individual actions and one class action. After the parties agreed to a global settlement via email, defense counsel confirmed the deal and the court was notified. The individual cases were subsequently dismissed with prejudice. When obstacles arose regarding finalization, including Wheatleigh’s concerns over attorney fees and purported conflicts of interest for class counsel, plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement. The district court granted the motion, enforced the settlement, and later granted preliminary and then final approval of the class-action settlement, including approval of attorney fees, expenses, and a service award.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed Wheatleigh’s appeal, which challenged the district court’s rulings on standing, enforcement and approval of the settlement, class certification, and attorney fees. The First Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding Article III standing for the named plaintiff, enforcing the global settlement, approving the class-action settlement despite alleged conflicts of counsel, maintaining class certification, and awarding attorney fees. The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mongue v. The Wheatleigh 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