Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs were laborers who worked on the construction and rehabilitation of two multi-family housing projects. Plaintiffs filed this wage and hour action and moved for certification of a proposed class including all laborers, tradesmen, and craftsmen who worked for Monfric, Inc., the general contractor, or its subcontractors and who were not paid prevailing wages during the construction and rehabilitation of the housing projects. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate numerosity of the proposed class. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish that their proposed class was so numerous as to make joinder of its remaining members in a single action impracticable. View "Morrow v. Monfric" on Justia Law

Avio claimed that Alfoccino violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), by hiring B2B to send unsolicited facsimile advertisements to Avio and a class of similarly situated persons. The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing and found that Avio could not prove Alfoccino was vicariously liable for B2B’s transmission of the faxes. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Avio demonstrated standing. Though the TCPA does not expressly state who has a cause of action to sue under its provisions, its descriptions of prohibited conduct repeatedly refer to the “recipient” of the unsolicited fax, and in enacting the TCPA, Congress noted that such fax advertising “is problematic” because it “shifts some of the costs of advertising from the sender to the recipient” and “occupies the recipient’s facsimile machine so that it is unavailable for legitimate business messages while processing and printing the junk fax.” FCC regulations define “sender” with respect to the TCPA’s prohibition of unsolicited fax advertisements as being “the person or entity on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are advertised or promoted in the unsolicited advertisement,” indicating that primary, not vicarious liability attaches to Alfoccino. View "Imhoff Inv., LLC v. Alfoccino, Inc." on Justia Law

Wal-Mart is the country’s largest private employer, operating approximately 3,400 stores and employing more than one million people. In 2001, named plaintiffs filed a putative class action (Dukes) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, on behalf of all former and current female Wal-Mart employees. In 2011 the Supreme Court reversed certification of the nationwide class of current Wal-Mart employees under Rule 23(b)(2), finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate questions of law or fact common to the class. The district court then held that all class members who possessed right-to-sue letters from the EEOC could file suit on or before October 28, 2011. Six unnamed Dukes class members filed suit, alleging individual and putative class claims under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of current and former female employees in Wal-Mart Region 43. . The district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The timely filing of a class-action complaint commences suit and tolls the statute of limitations for all members of the putative class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action; the suit is not barred by the earlier litigation. View "Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, hired as unpaid interns on the Fox Searchlight-distributed film "Black Swan," claimed compensation as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law. The district court granted plaintiff Glatt and Footman's motion for partial summary judgment, certified plaintiff Antalik's New York class, and conditionally certified Antalik's nationwide collective. The court agreed with defendants that the proper question is whether the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship, and the court proposed a list of non‐exhaustive factors to aid courts in answering that question. Because the district court limited its review to the six factors in DOL’s Intern Fact Sheet, the court remanded for the district court to permit the parties to submit additional evidence. Even if Antalik established that Fox had a policy of replacing paid employees with unpaid interns, it would not necessarily mean that every Fox intern was likely to prevail on her claim that she was an FLSA employee under the primary beneficiary test, the most important issue in each case. Assuming some questions may be answered with generalized proof, they are not more substantial than the questions requiring individualized proof. Because the most important question in this litigation cannot be answered with generalized proof, the court vacated the district court’s order certifying Antalik’s proposed class and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Finally, for substantially the same reasons as with respect to Antalik’s Rule 23 motion, the court vacated the district court’s order conditionally certifying Antalik’s proposed nationwide collective action and remanded for further proceedings. View "Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from an order denying certification of a class of approximately 26,000 nonexempt California current and former employees of Chipotle regarding what plaintiffs allege, among other things, is Chipotle‘s policy to require employees to purchase slip-resistant shoes from a vendor, Shoes for Crews, in order to work at Chipotle‘s restaurants. The court concluded that the trial court‘s order denying plaintiffs‘ class certification motion and granting Chipotle‘s motion to deny class certification is a nonappealable order because the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Lab. Code, 2698 et seq., claims remain in the trial court and the "death knell" doctrine does not apply under these circumstances. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Munoz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, CE filed a class action suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, against King. King had commercial general liability and umbrella policies from three insurance companies, but all three disclaimed any obligation to defend or indemnify, based on provisions in the policies that appeared to exempt liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act from coverage. The district court certified the class. On remand, CE and King agreed to settle the case for $20 million, the limit of the insurance policies. Their agreement, approved by the district court, provided that only one percent of the judgment ($200,000) could be executed against King. Upon learning of the proposed settlement, the insurers sought a state court declaratory judgment. A state court ruled that the insurance policies do not cover liability under the Act, but CE is appealing that decision. After the settlement agreement in the federal case, but before its approval, the insurers moved to intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), (b), hoping to delay approval of the settlement until there was a state-court determination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of the motion to intervene as untimely. View "Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. King Supply Co., LLC" on Justia Law

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