Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

The underlying suit alleges that the District does not provide adequate opportunity for community-based care to the District’s Medicaid beneficiaries who are currently receiving long-term care in nursing homes. Petitioner seeks permission to file an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's decision to certify the class. The court concluded that the District has not met its burden under the grounds for review it invoked to show “manifest error” by the District Court. Accordingly, the court denied the petition to permit an appeal of class certification and the court did not not reach the merits of the District’s substantive claims of error. View "In Re: District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Respondents, three married couples, obtained home equity lines of credit from Petitioners, a bank and its loan officer. Approximately four years later, Petitioners filed a putative class action alleging that these transactions were part of an elaborate “buy-first-sell-later” mortgage fraud arrangement carried out by Petitioners and other defendants. Petitioners alleged numerous causes of action, including fraud, conspiracy, and violations of Maryland consumer protection statutes. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Petitioners, concluding that the statute of limitations barred several of Respondents’ claims and that no Petitioner violated the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law as a matter of law. The Court of Special Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Court of Special Appeals (1) erred in concluding that Respondents stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law; and (2) erred in concluding that it was a question of fact to be decided by the jury as to whether Respondents’ claims against Petitioners were barred by the relevant statute of limitations. View "Windesheim v. Larocca" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant companies, alleging that they engaged in illegal debt collection practices in the course of carrying out non-judicial foreclosures. Defendants removed the action to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), 1453, 1711. The district court subsequently dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded that that Sparta Surgical Corporation v. NASD does not apply in the present circumstances and that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend. The court's holding, that plaintiffs should be permitted to amend a complaint after removal to clarify issues pertaining to federal jurisdiction under CAFA, is necessary in light of Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc. In this case, a class of exclusively Nevada plaintiffs has filed suit against six defendants, one of which is Nevada domiciled; the alleged misconduct took place exclusively in the state of Nevada; and the one Nevada domiciled defendant was allegedly responsible for between 15–20 percent of the wrongs alleged by the entire class. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiffs have met their burden to show that this case qualifies for the “local controversy exception.” Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court's judgment, remanding with instructions. View "Benko v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs obtained second mortgage loans on their homes through Bann-Cor. After Bann-Cor executed their loan agreements, it sold or assigned the loans and the accompanying mortgage liens to the defendants. The borrowers alleged that the defendants, either directly or indirectly, charged, contracted for, or received fees that were impermissible under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act. About 15 years ago, the borrowers first filed suit in Missouri state court against Bann-Cor. The borrowers periodically sought leave to amend the complaint and add additional defendants. After two removals to federal court and two remands, the borrowers filed their sixth amended complaint in 2010, which for the first time added Wells Fargo as a party. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the district court denied the borrowers’ motion to remand. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the subsequent dismissal on grounds that the borrowers lacked standing to pursue their claims against defendants who did not personally service their loans and that a three-year statute of limitations barred the action against remaining defendants. View "Wong v. Bann-Cor Mortgage" on Justia Law

An estimated 1,600 Missouri homeowners obtained second mortgage loans from FirstPlus, a now-defunct California company. After issuing the loans, FirstPlus sold and assigned the loans and second mortgages to the defendants. In a putative class action, the borrowers alleged that FirstPlus and the defendants violated the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA) by collecting impermissible fees which were rolled into and financed as part of the borrowers’ principal loan amount. The district court dismissed, concluding the claims were barred by a three-year statute of limitations and the action is not saved under class action tolling principles. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. In 2000, a different set of named borrowers had started a Missouri state court action based on the same MSMLA claims against FirstPlus. The state court granted summary judgment to the defendants in that action, concluding that there was no cause of action under MSMLA. The court rejected borrowers’ argument that they were members of that putative class and that their claims in this action should be tolled from the filing of that action in 2000 until its dismissal in 2004. View "Thomas v. US Bank NA ND" on Justia Law

In 2011, the IRS required tax preparers who were neither attorneys nor CPAs to pass a certification exam and obtain an identification number. H&R, a nation-wide tax service, passed anticipated costs to its customers by charging a “Compliance Fee.” H&R explained at its offices and on its website that the fee would cover only the costs to comply with the new laws. In 2011, the fee was $2; in 2012, the fee was $4. Perras sued on behalf of himself and a putative class. Perras alleged that the amount collected exceeded actual compliance costs. Perras sued under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The district court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims. Later, the court declined to certify the class, agreeing that the proposed class met the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) of “numerosity, commonality, typicality, and fair and adequate representation,” but Rule 23(b)(3), requires that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the Supreme Court of Missouri would likely conclude that the MMPA does not cover the out-of-state transactions. The law applicable to each class member would be the consumer-protection statute of that member’s state; questions of law common to the class members do not predominate over individual questions. View "Perras v. H&R Block" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nursing assistants who worked for the Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA) as hourly employees. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging violations of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for failing to pay them for all overtime hours worked. Plaintiffs sought class certification. After a hearing, the circuit court granted class certification. ADVA appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying the class. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its findings regarding the requirements of commonality, predominance, and superiority. View "Ark. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Okeke" on Justia Law

In 2012 the Golans received two unsolicited, prerecorded messages on their home phone line. Each message, recorded by Mike Huckabee, stated: "Liberty. This is a public survey call. We may call back later." The Golans had not answered the phone; more than one million people did and received a much longer message. The Golans filed a putative class action, alleging that the phone calls were part of a telemarketing campaign to promote the film, Last Ounce of Courage, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, and the Missouri Do Not Call Law. The district court dismissed with prejudice, concluding that the Golans did not have standing and were inadequate class representatives, being subject to a "unique defense" because they had heard only the brief message recording on their answering machine. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. The calls were initiated and transmitted in order to promote Last Ounce of Courage and qualified as "telemarketing" even though the messages never referenced the film. Because the purpose of the calls was the critical issue, the Golans were not subject to a unique defense. Nor did they suffer a different injury than class members who heard the entire message. View "Golan v. Veritas Entm't, LLC" on Justia Law

Zcom, a former Verizon retail sales agent, filed suit in state court alleging state-law contract and tort claims against Verizon and others. Zcom alleged that Verizon's termination of the parties' sales-agent relationship violated state law. Defendants removed to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), and Zcom filed an amended complaint dropping all class-action allegations. The court joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that “jurisdiction under CAFA is secure even though, after removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate the class allegations.” Therefore, the district court properly maintained subject-matter jurisdiction over the First Amended Complaint. On the merits, the court affirmed for substantially the reasons set forth in the opinions issued by the district court. View "In Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship" on Justia Law

Appellants were twelve nursing-home facilities doing business as Golden Living Centers in cities throughout Arkansas as well as related entities and individuals serving in leadership positions. Appellees, former residents of the nursing homes or their special administrators, guardians, or attorneys-in-fact, brought this class-action suit alleging that Appellants failed properly to staff the facilities and failed to meet minimum staffing requirements. Appellees brought claims for breach of contract and violations of the Arkansas Long-Term Residents’ Rights Act (Residents’ Rights Act) and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA). the circuit court entered an order granting class certification of the three claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellees met their burden of proving the predominance of common issues; (2) the class action approach was a superior method for resolving the question of Appellants’ liability; and (3) the class definition was sufficiently definite and precise. View "GGNSC Arkadelphia LLC v. Lamb" on Justia Law