Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Three criminal defendants in San Francisco, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, challenged the constitutionality of the San Francisco Sheriff's Office (SFSO) Pre-Trial Electronic Monitoring program (PTEM). They specifically contested Rule 5, which requires enrollees to submit to warrantless searches, and Rule 11, which allows SFSO to share participants’ location data with other law enforcement agencies without a warrant and to retain the data. The plaintiffs were divided into two subclasses: those enrolled in the program before May 2023 ("original rules subclass") and those enrolled after May 2023 ("revised rules subclass").The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Program Rules likely violated their rights under the United States and California constitutions. The court enjoined the enforcement of the challenged Program Rules for both subclasses. The Sheriff appealed the injunction, particularly the prohibition on enforcing the location sharing provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeals and that abstention was not warranted. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their facial challenges to Rule 11’s location sharing requirement for the revised rules subclass. The court determined that the Superior Court exercises a core judicial power in imposing PTEM and that the Sheriff’s program does not create separation-of-powers issues. The court also found that the location sharing provision was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution when ordered by the Superior Court following an individualized determination. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as to the revised rules subclass but affirmed it for the original rules subclass due to the lack of a clear record that location sharing was a condition of PTEM enrollment. The court also granted the Sheriff’s motion to stay the district court’s subsequent order enforcing the preliminary injunction. View "SIMON V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO" on Justia Law

Paul Osheske, a Facebook user, purchased a movie ticket on Landmark Theatres' website. Landmark Theatres, operated by Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., shared the name of the film, the location of the showing, and Osheske’s unique Facebook identification number with Facebook without his consent. Osheske filed a class action lawsuit against Landmark, alleging that this disclosure violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Osheske’s complaint, concluding that Landmark Theatres did not qualify as a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA. The court reasoned that the activities of selling tickets and providing an in-theater movie experience did not fall under the VPPA’s definition of “rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the VPPA does not apply to businesses providing a classic in-theater moviegoing experience. The court determined that the statutory text and historical context of the VPPA indicate that the Act was intended to cover the rental, sale, or delivery of video products, not the provision of shared access to film screenings in a theater. Consequently, Landmark Theatres' conduct did not make it a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA. The court also noted that the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend was proper, as the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. View "OSHESKE V. SILVER CINEMAS ACQUISITION COMPANY" on Justia Law

In 1990, a group of California state prisoners filed a lawsuit alleging that the State of California violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide adequate mental health care in its prisons. The plaintiffs, who later achieved class certification, prevailed in a 1995 bench trial, and the State was found to be in violation of its Eighth Amendment obligations. Despite efforts to develop and implement remedial plans, the State remained noncompliant with court orders to reduce mental health care provider staffing vacancies to fixed levels.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several orders over the years to address the staffing issues, including a 2017 order requiring the State to achieve a maximum ten percent vacancy rate for mental health care providers. By 2023, the State had not complied, leading the district court to establish a schedule of prospective fines for continued noncompliance. After finding persistent noncompliance, the district court issued final contempt findings in 2024, resulting in over $110 million in fines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision to hold the State in civil contempt. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the State failed to establish a substantial compliance defense or an impossibility defense. The court also held that the contempt fines were civil in nature and did not require criminal due process protections. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fines to the extent they exceeded the State’s monthly salary savings and remanded the case for additional findings and analysis regarding the exact amount of fines to be imposed. View "Coleman v. Newsom" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Perez, a former employee of Rose Hills Company, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws. The complaint did not specify the amount in controversy or the frequency of the alleged violations. Rose Hills removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which allows removal if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.The United States District Court for the Central District of California remanded the case to state court, stating that Rose Hills did not meet CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement. The district court found that Rose Hills failed to provide evidence justifying its assumed violation rate, which was used to calculate the amount in controversy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a removing defendant under CAFA is permitted to rely on reasonable assumptions based on the plaintiff’s complaint to calculate the amount in controversy. The court found that Rose Hills’ approach, which included assumptions about the violation rate tethered to the language of the complaint, was reasonable. The district court erred by requiring Rose Hills to provide evidence supporting its assumed violation rate.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to evaluate whether Rose Hills’ violation-rate assumption was a reasonable interpretation of the complaint. The court emphasized that assumptions need not be proven with evidence if they are reasonable interpretations of the complaint’s allegations. View "Perez v. Rose Hills Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., alleging that its business practices violated state and federal antitrust laws. These practices included Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy, which required cellular manufacturers to license Qualcomm’s patents to purchase its modem chips, and alleged exclusive dealing agreements with Apple and Samsung. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously challenged these practices, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the FTC, holding that Qualcomm did not violate the Sherman Act.The district court in the current case certified a nationwide class, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded to consider the viability of plaintiffs’ claims post-FTC v. Qualcomm. On remand, plaintiffs proceeded with state-law claims under California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court dismissed the tying claims and granted summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims. The court found that the Cartwright Act did not depart from the Sherman Act and that plaintiffs failed to show market foreclosure or anticompetitive impact in the tied product market. The court also rejected the UCL claims, finding no fraudulent practices and determining that plaintiffs could not seek equitable relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the tying claims and the summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims under the Cartwright Act. The court held that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy was not anticompetitive and that plaintiffs failed to show substantial market foreclosure or antitrust injury. The court also affirmed the rejection of the UCL claims but vacated the summary judgment on the UCL unfairness claim related to exclusive dealing, remanding with instructions to dismiss that claim without prejudice for refiling in state court. View "KEY V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED" on Justia Law

A cyberattack on California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. (CPK) in September 2021 compromised the personal information of over 100,000 former and current employees. This led to multiple class action lawsuits against CPK, alleging negligence and other claims. The consolidated plaintiffs reached a settlement with CPK, offering cash payments and credit monitoring services to class members, with CPK required to make payments only to those who submitted valid claims. The settlement's monetary value was estimated at around $950,000, while the attorneys sought $800,000 in fees.The United States District Court for the Central District of California approved the settlement but reserved judgment on the attorneys' fees until after the claims process concluded. The consolidated plaintiffs reported a final claims rate of 1.8%, with the maximum monetary value of the claims being around $950,000. Despite expressing concerns about the scope of attorneys' fees, the district court ultimately awarded the full $800,000 in fees and costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's approval of the class settlement, finding that the district court had properly applied the heightened standard to review the settlement for collusion and had not abused its discretion in finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the fee award, noting that the district court had not adequately assessed the actual value of the settlement and compared it to the fees requested. The case was remanded for the district court to determine the settlement's actual value to class members and award reasonable and proportionate attorneys' fees. View "IN RE: CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN DATA BREACH LITIGATION" on Justia Law

A plaintiff purchased shares of a company that went public through a direct listing, which involved listing already-issued shares rather than issuing new ones. Following the listing, the company's stock price fell, and the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the registration statement was misleading, thus violating sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. These sections impose strict liability for any untrue statement or omission of a material fact in a registration statement or prospectus.The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, despite the plaintiff's concession that he could not trace his shares to the registration statement. The court held that it was sufficient for the plaintiff to allege that the shares were of the same nature as those issued under the registration statement. The Ninth Circuit initially affirmed this decision.The United States Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that section 11 requires plaintiffs to show that the securities they purchased were traceable to the particular registration statement alleged to be false or misleading. On remand, the Ninth Circuit concluded that section 12(a)(2) also requires such traceability. Given the plaintiff's concession that he could not make the required showing, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint in full and with prejudice. View "PIRANI V. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES" on Justia Law

In the 1950s, the Tucson Unified School District (the District) operated a dual school system for Black and non-Black students. In 1974, class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of African American and Latino students, leading to a 1978 settlement agreement and desegregation decree. Over the years, the District undertook numerous efforts to remedy past discrimination. In 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's preliminary finding of unitary status, remanding the case for further supervision. A Unitary Status Plan (USP) was created in 2013 to guide the District towards unitary status.The District Court for the District of Arizona found partial unitary status in 2018, retaining jurisdiction over unresolved issues. By 2021, the court found the District had achieved unitary status in most areas, except for two subsections of the USP. In 2022, after further revisions and compliance, the district court declared the District had achieved full unitary status and ended federal supervision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the District had achieved unitary status, meaning it had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree and eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable. The court found no error in the district court's conclusions regarding student assignments, transportation, staff diversity, quality of education, student discipline, family and community engagement, and transparency and accountability. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that perfect implementation of the USP was not necessary for unitary status and that the District had demonstrated a lasting commitment to the USP and the Constitution. View "MENDOZA V. TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a would-be class-action against China Agritech and others, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Resh Action). Plaintiffs in this case were unnamed plaintiffs in two earlier would-be class actions against many of the same defendants based on the same underlying events (Dean and Smyth Actions). Class action certification was denied in both cases. Determining that appellate jurisdiction was proper, the Ninth Circuit held that the would-be class action brought by the Resh plaintiffs was not time-barred. In this case, plaintiffs' individual claims were tolled under American Pipe & Construction Co v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), during the pendency of the Dean and Smyth Actions. The panel explained that so long as they can satisfy the criteria of FRCP 23, and can persuade the district court that comity or preclusion principles do not bar their action, they were entitled to bring their timely individual claims as named plaintiffs in a would-be class action. The panel held that permitting future class action named plaintiffs, who were unnamed class members in previously uncertified classes, to avail themselves of American Pipe tolling would advance the policy objectives that led the Supreme Court to permit tolling in the first place View "Resh v. China Agritech" on Justia Law

At issue was whether plaintiffs may amend their complaint, after a case has been removed to federal court, to change the definition of the class so as to eliminate minimal diversity and thereby divest the federal court of jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs may not do so and clarified that the range of amendments permitted under the panel's prior opinion in Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 789 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2015), upon which the district court relied, is very narrow. Plaintiff filed suit against Visa and others, claiming that Visa is violating the state antitrust laws by fixing rates and preventing merchants from applying a surcharge for the use of credit cards. Because the existence of minimal diversity in this case must be determined on the basis of the pleadings at the time of removal in accordance with the general rule, the order of the district court remanding the case on the basis of a postremoval amendment must be reversed. View "Broadway Grill v. Visa" on Justia Law