Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Residents of Humboldt County filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the County’s system of administrative penalties and fees for cannabis abatement violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The County Code imposes daily fines of $6,000 to $10,000 for illegal cannabis cultivation. Plaintiffs claimed that the County charges landowners based on imprecise data or previous owners' conduct, causing emotional distress and financial burdens due to ongoing penalties and abatement costs.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not paid any fines, rendering the Eighth Amendment claim unripe. The court also found both facial and as-applied challenges untimely, reasoning that the statute of limitations began when the ordinance was enacted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that plaintiffs’ claim under the Excessive Fines Clause was constitutionally ripe and that they had standing due to the imposition of penalties causing concrete injuries, including emotional distress and financial expenses. The court also found that prudential ripeness considerations supported allowing the litigation to proceed. The court determined that the statute of limitations for facial challenges begins when plaintiffs know of the actual injury, not when the ordinance is enacted. Thus, some plaintiffs’ facial challenges were timely. The court also found that several plaintiffs had timely as-applied challenges, except for Cyro Glad, whose claim was untimely.On the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause, as the penalties and demolition orders were punitive and potentially excessive. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the dismissal only for Cyro Glad’s as-applied claim. View "THOMAS V. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT" on Justia Law

In this case, two organizations and four individuals brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Phoenix and several police officers, alleging violations of their constitutional rights during a protest outside a rally held by then-President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center on August 22, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that the police used excessive force and violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by dispersing the protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and flash-bang grenades.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona certified two classes and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for the individual Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims asserted by three plaintiffs against certain officers. The court found that there was no "seizure" of the class members under the Fourth Amendment and evaluated the excessive-force claims under the Fourteenth Amendment's "shocks-the-conscience" test. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding no evidence of retaliatory intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants on the class claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the use of airborne and auditory irritants did not constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and that the Fourteenth Amendment's "purpose to harm" standard applied. The court found no evidence of an improper purpose to harm by the officers.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants on the excessive-force claims asserted by the three plaintiffs, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances or did not violate clearly established law. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the individual defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding that the officers had objectively reasonable grounds to disperse the crowd due to a clear and present danger.Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Police Chief Williams and the City of Phoenix, concluding that there was no evidence that Williams caused or ratified the use of excessive force or that the City was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law

Lawanda Small, a beneficiary and additional insured of her deceased husband's Allianz life insurance policy, filed a class action lawsuit against Allianz Life Insurance Company. She alleged that Allianz violated California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 by failing to comply with notice procedures required to prevent policies from lapsing due to nonpayment of premiums. Small sought to represent two subclasses: the "Living Insured Subclass" seeking equitable relief to reinstate life insurance coverage, and the "Beneficiary Subclass" seeking damages from death benefits where the insured was deceased.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified the class, finding that both subclasses satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). The court granted summary judgment for Small and the class on their breach of contract and declaratory relief claims, ruling that Allianz improperly lapsed the policies by failing to comply with the Statutes. Allianz appealed, arguing that the district court erred in certifying the class and that the summary judgment orders violated the one-way intervention prohibition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order certifying the class and vacated the summary judgment orders. The appellate court held that to recover for alleged violations of the Statutes, plaintiffs must show not only that the insurer violated the notice requirements but also that the violation caused them harm. The court found that individual questions of causation and injury predominated over common questions, making class certification inappropriate. Additionally, the court determined that Small was not an adequate representative with typical questions to represent both subclasses. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Small v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America" on Justia Law

A class of over 500,000 federal student loan borrowers sued the U.S. Department of Education for failing to process their borrower defense (BD) applications. The Department and the plaintiffs reached a settlement, which included automatic debt forgiveness for certain borrowers and streamlined adjudication for others. Three for-profit universities (the Schools) listed in the settlement as having substantial misconduct intervened, claiming reputational harm.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement and denied the Schools' motion to intervene as of right but allowed them to object to the settlement. The Schools appealed, arguing that the settlement caused them reputational and financial harm and interfered with their procedural rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Schools had Article III standing due to alleged reputational harm but lacked prudential standing to challenge the settlement because they did not demonstrate formal legal prejudice. The court found that the dispute between the plaintiffs and the Department was not moot, as the Department's voluntary cessation of issuing pro forma denials did not render the case moot. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the Schools' motion to intervene as of right, concluding that the Schools did not have a significantly protectable interest and failed to show prejudice from the denial of intervention as of right.The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed the district court's denial of intervention as of right. View "Sweet v. Everglades College, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, alleging anticompetitive practices in violation of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs had purchased tickets through Ticketmaster’s website, which required them to agree to Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use. These terms included an arbitration agreement mandating that disputes be resolved by an arbitrator from New Era ADR, using expedited/mass arbitration procedures.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the clause delegating the authority to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator was unconscionable under California law, both procedurally and substantively. The court also held that the entire arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The defendants appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement as a whole were unconscionable under California law. The court found that the delegation clause was part of a contract of adhesion and that the terms on Ticketmaster’s website exhibited extreme procedural unconscionability. Additionally, the court identified several features of New Era’s arbitration rules that contributed to substantive unconscionability, including the mass arbitration protocol, lack of discovery, limited right of appeal, and arbitrator selection provisions.The Ninth Circuit also held that the application of California’s unconscionability law to the arbitration agreement was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As an alternate and independent ground, the court held that the FAA does not preempt California’s prohibition of class action waivers in contracts of adhesion in large-scale small-stakes consumer cases, as established in Discover Bank v. Superior Court. The court concluded that Ticketmaster’s Terms and New Era’s Rules were independently unconscionable under Discover Bank. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "HECKMAN V. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, challenging the constitutionality of a $63 late fee imposed for failing to pay a parking meter fine within 21 days. The plaintiffs argue that this late fee, which matches the amount of the original fine, violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The plaintiffs incurred at least one parking meter citation and late fee, and they assert that the late fee is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to individuals who cannot afford to pay it within the specified time frame.The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that the $63 parking fine was not "grossly disproportionate" to the offense of overstaying a parking meter. The court also rejected the challenge to the $63 late fee without providing a detailed rationale. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit previously upheld the initial fine but remanded the case to determine whether the late fee violated the Excessive Fines Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for the City regarding the late fee. The Ninth Circuit found that a genuine factual dispute exists about the City's basis for setting the late fee at 100 percent of the parking fine. The court noted that the City provided no evidence on how it determined the $63 late fee amount, making it impossible to conclude as a matter of law that the fee is not "grossly disproportional" to the harm caused by the untimely payment. The court declined to incorporate means-testing into the Excessive Fines Clause analysis, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the fee should consider individuals' ability to pay. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "PIMENTEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

Brian Houston, representing a putative class, filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County and Sheriff Paul Penzone, alleging that the County's practice of posting arrestees' photographs and identifying information on its Mugshot Lookup website violated his substantive and procedural due process rights and his right to a speedy public trial. Houston's mugshot and personal details were posted online for three days following his arrest, even though he was never prosecuted. He claimed this caused him public humiliation, reputational harm, and emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed Houston's claims. The court found that the Mugshot Lookup post was not a condition of pretrial detention and that Houston failed to show a cognizable liberty or property interest under state law for his procedural due process claim. The court also dismissed his Sixth Amendment claim, noting that Houston was not prosecuted and thus had no trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of Houston's substantive due process claim, holding that Houston sufficiently alleged that the Mugshot Lookup post caused him actionable harm and that the County's transparency justification did not rationally relate to the punitive nature of the post. The court affirmed the dismissal of Houston's procedural due process claim, as he did not demonstrate a protected liberty or property interest under state law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of his Sixth Amendment claim, as Houston was not prosecuted and thus had no right to a speedy trial.The Ninth Circuit concluded that Houston adequately pleaded a substantive due process claim but failed to state claims for procedural due process and Sixth Amendment violations. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "HOUSTON V. MARICOPA COUNTY" on Justia Law

In the wake of George Floyd's death in May 2020, Los Angeles experienced widespread protests. The plaintiffs, including Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and several individuals, filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and then-LAPD Chief Michel Moore. They alleged that the LAPD used excessive force, arrested protestors without probable cause, and restricted their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit sought to certify four classes: a Direct Force Class, an Arrest Class, an Infraction Class, and an Injunctive Relief Class.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified all four classes. The court found that the plaintiffs had raised common questions about whether LAPD customs or policies caused their injuries. However, the district court did not rigorously analyze whether the damages classes satisfied the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a) or whether common questions predominated over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also failed to address whether the Injunctive Relief Class met the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification order. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not rigorously analyze whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to meet the class certification requirements. Specifically, the district court did not adequately address the commonality and predominance requirements for the damages classes or identify common questions for the Injunctive Relief Class. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions for the district court to fully address Rule 23’s class certification requirements. View "BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, dog owners, alleged that Nutramax Laboratories falsely marketed their product, Cosequin, as promoting healthy joints in dogs, despite evidence suggesting it provided no such benefits. They claimed this violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The district court certified a class of California purchasers who were exposed to the allegedly misleading statements on Cosequin’s packaging.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified the class, relying on the proposed damages model of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jean-Pierre Dubé, who had not yet executed his model. Nutramax challenged this, arguing that the model needed to be applied to the class to demonstrate that damages were susceptible to common proof. The district court found Dr. Dubé’s model sufficiently reliable for class certification purposes and concluded that common questions predominated regarding injury. Nutramax also contended that the element of reliance was not susceptible to common proof, but the district court found that classwide reliance could be established through proof of material misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that there is no general requirement for an expert to apply a reliable damages model to the proposed class to demonstrate that damages are susceptible to common proof at the class certification stage. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Dubé’s proposed model sufficiently sound. Additionally, the court rejected Nutramax’s argument regarding reliance, affirming that classwide reliance could be established under the CLRA through proof of material misrepresentation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of class certification. View "LYTLE V. NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves the plaintiffs, including the estate of Carson Bride and three minors, who suffered severe harassment and bullying through the YOLO app, leading to emotional distress and, in Carson Bride's case, suicide. YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging app that promised to unmask and ban users who engaged in bullying or harassment but allegedly failed to do so. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YOLO, claiming violations of state tort and product liability laws.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability. The court found that the claims sought to hold YOLO responsible for third-party content posted on its app, which is protected under the CDA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims, holding that these claims were based on YOLO's promise to unmask and ban abusive users, not on a failure to moderate content. The court found that the misrepresentation claims were analogous to a breach of promise, which is not protected by Section 230. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' product liability claims, holding that Section 230 precludes liability because these claims attempted to hold YOLO responsible as a publisher of third-party content. The court concluded that the product liability claims were essentially about the failure to moderate content, which is protected under the CDA. View "Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law