Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Hourly workers at a brewing company’s Williamsburg, Virginia facility alleged that the company failed to pay them for various pre- and post-shift activities, including donning and doffing personal protective equipment, complying with COVID-19 protocols, attending shift-handoff meetings, and handling tools. The company used an electronic badge system for entry but compensated employees based on scheduled shift hours, not actual time on site. Different employees performed these tasks at different times and locations, with some tasks done at home, some during shift hours, and some on the premises outside shift hours. The company committed to pay for all hours actually worked, provided employees notified management about extra time worked.The plaintiffs filed suit under the Virginia Wage Payment Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking class certification for wage and hour claims. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia certified the class, finding that common questions predominated, such as whether the company’s policy resulted in uncompensated mandatory work. The district court’s class definition included all hourly employees at the facility within the relevant timeframe, and it denied the company’s motion to decertify the FLSA collective action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred by certifying the class without adequately considering significant variations among employees regarding their pre- and post-shift activities, the timing and location of those activities, and the applicable legal standards over time. The appellate court found that the class definition was overly broad and failed to account for differences among employees. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded for further proceedings, allowing the district court to consider narrower subclasses or to deny certification entirely. The appeal regarding the FLSA collective action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Overby v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of children in West Virginia’s foster care system filed a class action lawsuit against state officials, alleging systemic failures by the state agencies responsible for their care. The plaintiffs claimed the state’s practices resulted in widespread abuses, neglect, inadequate placements, understaffing, and failure to provide necessary physical and mental health services. They alleged violations of their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as statutory violations under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The class action encompassed approximately 6,800 foster children, with additional subclasses for kinship placements, children with disabilities, and those aging out of the system.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia initially dismissed the case on abstention and mootness grounds, but that decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Jonathan R. ex rel. Dixon v. Justice. Upon remand, the district court certified the General Class and ADA Subclass, denied certification of other subclasses, and proceeded with discovery. In February 2025, the district court, acting sua sponte and without notice or briefing, dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of standing, finding that it lacked power under Article III to grant the requested injunctive and declaratory relief and concluding the plaintiffs’ injuries were not redressable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It held that federal courts have the authority and duty to remedy systemic constitutional violations, including through comprehensive injunctive relief and declaratory judgments in institutional reform cases. The court found that the plaintiffs’ injuries were sufficiently concrete and ongoing, and that the requested relief was likely to redress those injuries. The district court’s dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. The Fourth Circuit declined to reassign the case to a new judge and found West Virginia’s cross-appeal on class decertification unreviewable at this stage. View "Jonathan R. v. Morrisey" on Justia Law

A former employee brought a class-action lawsuit against his previous employer, alleging that the company’s practices concerning rounding employees’ time entries and automatically deducting meal breaks resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The employer operated manufacturing facilities in North Carolina and used policies that rounded employee work time and deducted unpaid meal breaks regardless of whether an employee actually took the break. Plaintiffs argued these policies led to unpaid overtime and wages.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina initially certified two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA. However, after further developments and evidence showing that individualized inquiries would be necessary to determine whether employees were harmed by the time-rounding and meal-deduction policies, and that not all employees suffered wage loss, the district court decertified the classes and collective action. Subsequently, the named plaintiffs settled their individual claims with the employer, and the district court dismissed all remaining substantive claims with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was asked to review the district court’s order decertifying the classes and collective action. The court held that because the plaintiff voluntarily settled his individual claims before filing the appeal, he lacked standing to challenge the district court’s decertification order. The court reasoned that once the individual claims underlying the request for class certification are settled or dismissed voluntarily, the plaintiff no longer retains a concrete interest sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Mebane v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc." on Justia Law

Donte Jackson received a $30,000 loan from WebBank, which was later sold to Velocity Investments, LLC. After Jackson defaulted on the loan, Velocity, represented by the law firm Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC (PSC), sued Jackson in Maryland state court to collect the debt. Velocity eventually dismissed the state court suit with prejudice. Subsequently, Jackson brought a class action lawsuit against both Velocity and PSC, alleging that their practice of suing on time-barred debts was unlawful.In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, both Velocity and PSC moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in Jackson’s original promissory note. The district court found that Velocity, as a subsequent holder of the note, was a party to the arbitration agreement but had waived its right to arbitrate by filing suit in state court. The court ruled that PSC was not a party to the agreement, as it did not fit the contractual definition of an entity “servicing” the note, which the court interpreted in accordance with Maryland law. Only PSC appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that PSC, as the law firm representing Velocity, was not a party to the arbitration agreement because it did not “service” the note in the relevant contractual sense, which involves collecting and maintaining a payment schedule for the loan. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement covered only creditors and loan servicers, not lawyers. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of PSC’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Jackson v. Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC" on Justia Law

Three individuals suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) alleged that while incarcerated in facilities where a private medical contractor provided care, they were denied medically accepted screening and treatment for their condition. They claimed that the medical contractor excluded opioid dependence screening and treatment from its otherwise comprehensive services, forcing affected individuals to undergo withdrawal, even when arriving with a valid prescription for medication-assisted treatment. The plaintiffs asserted that these policies were motivated by cost-saving considerations and persisted even after the contractor was aware of the prevailing medical standards and associated constitutional risks.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia reviewed the case, which was filed as a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs sought to certify two classes: one requesting injunctive relief to require the contractor to provide proper screening and treatment, and another seeking damages for past deprivation of such care. The district court certified both classes after narrowing their definitions to ensure ascertainability and found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were met. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the defendant, challenged the certification, particularly arguing against the validity, typicality, and commonality of the classes, as well as the predominance and superiority requirements for the damages class.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine, in the first instance, whether the named plaintiffs had standing to represent the class seeking injunctive relief, given that standing was first raised on appeal and required fact-specific findings. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of the damages class, finding no abuse of discretion in its conclusions regarding ascertainability, the Rule 23(a) requirements, predominance, and superiority. View "Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

A financial advisory employee of a large securities firm participated in a compensation program called the WealthChoice Awards, which provided annual contingent cash awards to select high-performing advisors. To earn these awards, an advisor had to meet certain revenue thresholds and remain employed at the company for eight years after the award was granted. A notional, unfunded account tracked a benchmark investment, but no funds were set aside for the advisor during the vesting period. If the advisor left the company before vesting, the award was typically forfeited. After vesting, payment was mandatory and made promptly, usually while the advisor was still employed. The stated purpose of the program was to incentivize retention and productivity, not to provide retirement income.After voluntarily resigning and forfeiting unvested awards, the employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. He alleged that the WealthChoice Awards program was an “employee pension benefit plan” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and that it violated ERISA’s vesting and anti-forfeiture rules. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the program was a bonus plan exempt from ERISA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the WealthChoice Awards program is a bonus payment plan and not an ERISA-covered pension benefit plan. The court reasoned that the program’s primary purpose was to enhance retention and productivity, eligibility was limited, the awards were not funded with deferred employee income, and payment was not systematically deferred until employment termination or retirement. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Milligan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals, each of whom held credit card debt with Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy—one under Chapter 13 and the other under Chapter 7—in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia. After receiving notice of the bankruptcy filings, Goldman Sachs allegedly continued collection efforts on the debts, including repeated communications warning of adverse credit reporting. The debtors claimed these actions violated the automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Code. They commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), seeking damages and injunctive relief, and proposed to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.Goldman Sachs responded by moving to compel arbitration of the debtors’ claims based on an arbitration clause in the credit card agreements, and sought to stay the adversary proceeding. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Goldman Sachs’ motion, finding that the claim for a willful violation of the automatic stay was a core bankruptcy matter, and that enforcing arbitration would irreconcilably conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia affirmed, holding that arbitration would undermine the bankruptcy court’s authority to enforce the automatic stay and disrupt the centralized resolution of bankruptcy-related disputes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Fourth Circuit held that compelling arbitration of a statutory and constitutionally core claim for violation of the automatic stay would conflict with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, including centralization of claims, uniform enforcement, the debtor’s “fresh start,” and the specialized expertise of bankruptcy courts. The court concluded that under these circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown" on Justia Law

Two former employees of a financial services company, each a participant in the employer’s defined contribution retirement plan, sued the company on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated plan participants. They alleged that the company, as plan sponsor and fiduciary, breached its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by selecting and retaining certain BlackRock LifePath Index Funds as investment options, which they claimed were imprudent and caused monetary losses to their individual plan accounts. The plaintiffs sought recovery of losses under ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss most of the claims, holding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a breach of fiduciary duty. It then certified a class of all plan participants and beneficiaries with investments in the BlackRock funds during the relevant period, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), finding that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims are inherently suitable for class treatment because they are brought on behalf of the plan and that allowing individual suits would risk inconsistent standards or impair interests of absent participants. The district court also found that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) was satisfied.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the class certification order. The Fourth Circuit held that, in the context of a defined contribution plan, claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) for monetary losses to individual accounts are inherently individualized and cannot be joined in a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1), which does not provide for notice or opt-out rights. The court also held that the claims failed to satisfy the commonality prerequisite because many class members did not experience the same injury. The district court’s order was thus reversed and vacated. View "Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc." on Justia Law

A married couple who lived in West Virginia refinanced their home loan in 2004. Over the years, they regularly sent their mortgage servicer payments that included both the scheduled monthly amount and additional principal prepayments, combining the two in single checks and clearly indicating when a prepayment was included. The loan servicers, including LoanCare, LLC (which began servicing the loan in 2019), allegedly failed to apply the prepayments before the monthly payments, resulting in the couple being charged excess interest. Despite several requests for correction, LoanCare did not adjust its practices. The couple eventually paid off the loan and sought a refund for the excess interest.The couple filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that LoanCare violated two provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (the Act): section 46A-2-127(d) and section 46A-2-128. They also asserted claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment and conversion claims, but allowed the statutory claims to proceed. After discovery, LoanCare moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Act required proof of intentional misconduct, and that there was no evidence it acted intentionally.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment for LoanCare, holding that the Act’s provisions at issue required proof of intentional violation, which the couple could not show. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in requiring intent, holding that the statutory provisions impose strict liability and do not require proof of intent to violate. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Tederick v. Loancare, LLC" on Justia Law

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., a publicly traded company, announced ambitious financial goals for 2023, which increased its stock price. However, the company subsequently lowered its guidance and identified a series of accounting errors, resulting in significant declines in its stock price. The City of Southfield General Employees’ Retirement System, representing investors who purchased stock during the period between November 2022 and November 2023, filed a class action lawsuit against Advance Auto and several former executives. The plaintiffs alleged violations of SEC Rule 10b-5 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, asserting that the defendants intentionally or recklessly misrepresented the company’s financial results and forecasts.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina consolidated several investor suits and designated Southfield as lead plaintiff. The court found that Southfield adequately alleged material misstatements or omissions and satisfied the basic requirements for a securities fraud claim, except for scienter—the requirement that defendants acted with wrongful intent or recklessness. The court concluded that the more plausible inference was that the defendants acted in good faith and corrected errors as they became known, dismissing the complaint for failure to sufficiently plead scienter.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit examined the allegations individually and holistically, finding that none supported a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court held that the facts, even when considered collectively, only plausibly suggested wrongful intent but did not meet the heightened standard for a strong inference. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the securities fraud claims and the related vicarious liability claim. View "City of Southfield General Employees' Retirement v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc." on Justia Law