Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Appellants, objectors to a class action settlement between day laborers and Labor Ready, appealed the district court’s final approval of the settlement, as well as the district court’s denial of their motion to intervene. The court affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Objectors’ untimely motion to intervene because it was filed after four years of ongoing litigation, on the eve of the settlement, and threatened to prejudice settling parties by potentially derailing settlement talks. The court vacated the final approval and remanded to the district court so that it can conduct a “more searching inquiry into the fairness of the negotiated distribution of funds in light of In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., as well as consider the substantive reasonableness of the attorneys’ fee request in light of the degree of success attained.” View "Allen v. Bedolla" on Justia Law

In 2002, ESI acquired NPA, which provided pharmacy-benefit-management services to health funds created by the police union. In 2003, those funds brought a class action against ESI and NPA. The funds had never contracted with ESI. In 2004, the New York Attorney General sued ESI, resulting in a consent judgment. Based on that consent judgment, ESI moved for summary judgment in the funds’ suit. The district court granted ESI’s motion, applying res judicata. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. ESI argued that the AG “alleged claims on behalf of the” funds, but the funds were not parties to the AG’s suit, nor did the AG allege claims on their behalf. The AG complaint referred to “other New York government plans,” meaning “counties and municipalities that contract with ESI.” The funds did not contract with ESI and are neither a county nor a municipality. They are private trusts. Their trustees are union officers, not city officials with whom they bargain. View "Lynch v. Nat'l Prescription Admin." on Justia Law

In a securities-fraud class action, plaintiffs won a verdict of $2.46 billion, apparently one of the largest to date, against Household International and three of its top executives. The suit was based on a dramatic increase (and subsequent collapse) in the price of Household’s stock that was driven by predatory lending practices and creative accounting to mask delinquencies. The Seventh Circuit ordered a new trial on two issues: whether plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation and instructional error concerning what it means to “make” a false statement in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony did not adequately address whether firm-specific, nonfraud factors contributed to the collapse in Household’s stock price during the relevant time period. View "Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

A class action complaint alleged that for many years the commercial filmmaking wing of the NFL used the names, images, likenesses, and identities of former NFL players in videos to generate revenue and promote the NFL. It asserted claims for false endorsement (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125), common law and statutory rights of publicity claims under several states' laws, and unjust enrichment. The court approved a settlement calling for: creation of the Common Good Entity, a non-profit organization; payment of up to $42 million to the Common Good Entity over eight years; establishment of the Licensing Agency; payment of $100,000 worth of media value to the Licensing Agency each year until 2021; (5) Payment of attorneys' fees and settlement administration expenses; a reserve for the NFL's potential fees and costs involving class members who opt out; and class members' perpetual release of claims and publicity rights for the NFL and related entities to use. The Common Good Entity is "dedicated to supporting and promoting the health and welfare of Retired Players and other similarly situated individuals." Six players (the class had about 25,000 members) objected. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate despite not providing for a direct financial payment to each class member. View "Marshall v. Nat'l Football League" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs receive subsidies for providing home childcare services for low-income families. A union was established and authorized to bargain on their behalf, based on submission of 22,180 valid provider-signed authorization cards out of a possible 40,532 eligible providers. A collective bargaining agreement was executed; the state began deducting union dues and fees from subsidy payments. Plaintiffs filed a purported class-action lawsuit for the return of the money, alleging violation of their First Amendment rights. The district court denied certification of the proposed class (all Michigan home childcare providers) based on conflict of interest: some members voted for representation and others voted against representation. Plaintiffs proposed a subclass of only providers who did not participate in any election related to union representation. The district court rejected the proposal, stating that it could not assume that all members of the subclass opposed representation and that, even if they did, their reasons were different enough to create conflict within the class. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court remanded for further consideration in light of its 2014 decision, Harris v. Quinn, that a similar agency fee provision violated the First Amendment as applied to homecare providers because the providers were not full-fledged state employees. The Court did not address class certification. On remand, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Harris did not affect its class certification decision and affirmed. View "Schlaud v. Snyder" on Justia Law

In this putative class action, plaintiffs are a class of black steel workers who allege endemic racial discrimination at a South Carolina plant owned by Nucor. At issue was whether the workers have presented a common question of employment discrimination through evidence of racism in the workplace. In light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the district court on remand refused to certify the class. The court held that the district court has for a second time erred in refusing to certify the workers’ class, where (1) statistics indicate that promotions at Nucor depended in part on whether an individual was black or white; (2) substantial anecdotal evidence suggests discrimination in specific promotions decisions in multiple plant departments; and (3) there is also significant evidence that those promotions decisions were made in the context of a racially hostile work environment. The court concluded that the district court fundamentally misapprehended the reach of Wal-mart and its application to the workers' promotions class. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and remanded for recertification of the class. View "Brown v. Nucor Corp." on Justia Law

The Andermanns obtained mobile phone service from U.S. Cellular in 2000. Their renewable two-year contract was renewed for the last time in 2012. It included an arbitration clause that “survives the termination of this service agreement” and provided that “U.S. Cellular may assign this Agreement … without notice.” In 2013 U.S. Cellular sold the Andermanns’ contract to Sprint, without notice to the Andermanns. Months later Sprint sent Andermanns a letter, informing them of the sale and that their mobile service would be terminated on January 31, 2014 because Andermanns’ phones were not compatible with Sprint’s network. In December Sprint phoned to remind them that their service was about to expire, and added that Sprint had “a great set of offers and devices available to fit [their] needs.” Sprint made six such calls. Andermanns answered none, but filed a purported class action, contending that the unsolicited advertisements contained in the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227. Sprint requested arbitration, 9 U.S.C. 4. The district court denied Sprint’s motion. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding connection to the contract, asking: What would Sprint have done if forbidden to call the customers whom it had inherited from U.S. Cellular and must now terminate because of technical incompatibility? View "Andermann v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P." on Justia Law

In these consolidated cases, BP appealed three settlement awards, related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, that it paid to nonprofits through its Court-Supervised Settlement Program. On appeal, BP argued that the Claims Administrator improperly interpreted the Settlement Agreement. The awards were based on the Claims Administrator’s determination that nonprofits may count donations and grants as “revenue” under the terms of the Agreement (the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation). As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that it has jurisdiction over this appeal under the collateral order doctrine and that BP's appeals were timely. On the merits, the court concluded that BP failed to show that the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation violates the plain language of the Agreement. The court held that the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation does not alter the class definition in violation of Rule 23 or Article III. Finally, the court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of review of the individual awards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Bayer AG and Bayer Corporation (collectively, Bayer) marketed Cipro, an antibiotic. In 1987, Bayer was issued a United States patent on the active ingredient in Cipro. Twelve years before the expiration of the patent, Barr Laboratories, Inc. filed an application to market a generic version of Cipro. Bayer responded with a patent infringement suit, and Barr counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid. In 1997, Bayer and Barr entered into a settlement agreement under which Bayer agreed to make a “reverse payment” to Barr in exchange for Barr dropping its patent challenge and consenting to stay out of the market. The settlement produced numerous state and federal antitrust suits. This case arose from nine such coordinated class action suits brought by indirect purchasers of Cipro in California. The complaint alleged that the Bayer-Barr reverse payment settlement violated the Cartwright Act, unfair competition law, an common law prohibition against monopolies. The trial court granted summary judgment for Bayer and Barr. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that parties illegally restrain trade when they privately agree to substitute consensual monopoly in place of potential competition that would have followed a finding of invalidity or noninfringement. View "In re Cipro Cases I & II" on Justia Law

Across the state, plaintiffs were filing complaints against health care providers from whom they sought treatment following automobile accidents and with whom their health care insurers had contracted reimbursement rates for the services rendered. At issue was the legality of these providers' policy of collecting or attempting to collect the undiscounted rate from the insured if a liability insurer may be liable, implemented through the filing of medical liens against plaintiffs' lawsuits and settlements pursuant to the health care provider lien statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the appellate courts of this state on the issue of whether a class action is the superior method for adjudicating actions brought pursuant to the Health Care Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act ("Balance Billing Act"). After review, the Court found plaintiffs in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal proceeded as a class, while plaintiffs in the Second Circuit Court of Appeal were denied class certification. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court found the class action was superior to any other available method for a fair and efficient adjudication of the common controversy over the disputed billing and lien practices. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Second Circuit. Finding all other requirements for class certification properly met, the Court reinstated the judgment of the trial court. View "Baker v. PHC-Minden, L.P." on Justia Law