Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A franchisee janitorial worker, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against System4 LLC, a master franchisor, and NECCS, Inc., a regional subfranchisor, alleging, among other claims, breach of contract, misclassification as independent contractors in their franchise agreements, and rescission of the franchise agreements. The franchise agreements, signed only by Plaintiffs and NEECS, required the franchisees to arbitrate virtually all disputes. Defendants, citing the arbitration clause in the franchise agreement, moved to stay the court proceedings pending arbitration. The judge concluded that because System4 was not a nonsignatory to the agreements, Plaintiffs could proceed to litigate their claims against System4 in court. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that, by reason of equitable estoppel, System4 could compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their substantive claims in accordance with the arbitration provision in Plaintiffs’ franchise agreements. Remanded. View "Machado v. System4 LLC" on Justia Law

From 1998 to 2012 Abbott marketed the anticonvulsant medication Depakote for applications that had not been FDA-approved (off-label uses). Physicians may prescribe drugs for off-label uses, but pharmaceutical companies are generally prohibited from marketing drugs for those same applications. Qui tam actions were filed under the False Claims Act. In 2009, Abbott disclosed in an SEC filing that the Department of Justice was investigating its marketing. Abbott pleaded guilty to illegally promoting Depakote from 2001 through 2006 and agreed to pay $1.6 billion to settle the criminal and qui tam actions. Employee benefits funds filed suit 15 months later, alleging that Abbott misrepresented Depakote’s safety and efficacy for off-label uses, paid kickbacks to physicians, established and funded intermediary entities to promote the drug for off-label uses, and concealed its role in these activities, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court dismissed, finding that the statute of limitations for the RICO claim began to run in 1998, when the funds initially reimbursed a prescription for off-label use. The court refused to toll the limitations period until the guilty plea, finding that Abbott’s concealment efforts were not designed to hinder potential lawsuits. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that dismissal was premature without an opportunity for discovery into when a reasonable fund should have known about its injuries from off-label marketing. View "Sidney Hillman Health Ctr. of Rochester v. Abbott Labs., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1996, a Florida District Court of Appeal approved certification of a class-action lawsuit originating in the Circuit Court of Dade County that encompassed an estimated 700,000 Floridians who brought state-law damages claims against the major American tobacco companies for medical conditions, including cancer, "caused by their addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine." The Florida Supreme Court then decertified the class but held that the jury findings would nonetheless have "res judicata effect" in cases thereafter brought against one or more of the tobacco companies by a former class member. Here, a member of that now-decertified class, successfully advanced strict-liability and negligence claims that trace their roots to the pre-decertified class' jury findings. Over the defendants' objection, the District Court instructed the jury that "you must apply certain findings made by the [class action] court and they must carry the same weight they would have if you had listened to all the evidence and made those findings yourselves." When the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on both claims, the defendants renewed their motion for a judgment as a matter of law, contending, among other things, that federal law preempted the jury’s imposition of tort liability as based on the class-action jury findings. The District Court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed: "the State of Florida may ordinarily enforce duties on cigarette manufacturers in a bid to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. But it may not enforce a duty, as it has through the [class-action] jury findings, premised on the theory that all cigarettes are inherently defective and that every cigarette sale is an inherently negligent act. So our holding is narrow indeed: it is only these specific, sweeping bases for state tort liability that we conclude frustrate the full purposes and objectives of Congress. As a result, [plaintiff's class-action]-progeny strict-liability and negligence claims are preempted, and we must reverse the District Court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law." View "Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of traditional blood reagents, used to test blood compatibility between donors and recipients, from Immucor and OrthoClinical (defendants). By 1999, the entire domestic supply of that product was under defendants’ control. In 2000, defendants’ executives attended a trade meeting at which plaintiffs assert the conspiracy began. Defendants soon began rapidly increasing prices. By 2009, many prices had risen more than 2000%. Following a Department of Justice probe, private suits were filed, transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and consolidated. Plaintiffs sought damages under the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, for alleged horizontal price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. After preliminary approval of plaintiffs’ settlement with Immucor, the court certified plaintiffs’ class of “[a]ll individuals and entities who purchased traditional blood reagents in the United States directly from Defendants ... at any time from January 1, 2000 through the present.” Plaintiffs relied in part on expert testimony to produce their antitrust impact analyses and damages models, which Ortho challenged. The Supreme Court subsequently decided Comcast v. Behrend, which reversed Behrend v. Comcast, on which the district court relied in granting class certification. The Third Circuit vacated, reasoning that the court had no opportunity to consider the implications of Comcast; a court must resolve any Daubert challenges to expert testimony offered to demonstrate conformity with Rule 23 View "In re: Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

Patipan Nakkhumpun, lead plaintiff in a securities class action, represented investors who purchased securities in Delta Petroleum Corporation. Defendants were former officers and a board member of Delta who allegedly violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission by misleading investors through statements about (1) a proposed transaction with Opon International, LLC and (2) Delta’s financial condition. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Nakkhumpun had failed to allege: (1) loss causation regarding the statement about the Opon deal; and (2) falsity regarding the statements about Delta’s financial condition. Nakkhumpun moved for leave to amend, and the district court denied the motion on the ground of futility. On appeal, the parties disputed whether Nakkhumpun adequately pleaded falsity, scienter and loss causation with regard to the Opon transaction, and falsity and scienter with regard to Delta's financial condition. Upon further review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court concluded Nakkhumpun adequately alleged falsity, scienter and loss causation on the Opon transaction, but failed to adequately plead regarding Delta's financial condition. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nakkhumpun v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In 2011, Eminence Investors, LLLP (Plaintiff) brought suit against against The Bank of New York Mellon (Defendant). Nearly two years later, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding class allegations on behalf of more than 100 class members and requesting compensatory damages expected to exceed $10 million. Within thirty days of the filing of the complaint, Defendant removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. The district court remanded the case to state court, concluding that removal was untimely. Defendant appealed. A panel of the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the appeal, holding that the securities exception from CAFA removal applied to this case. View "Eminence Investors, LLLP v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

As surviving spouse of Stuart Hess and personal representative of his estate, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Philip Morris USA (Defendant), asserting claims of fraudulent concealment and alleging that Mr. Hess detrimentally relied on and dried as a proximate result of Defendants’ fraud. A jury entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law on the fraudulent concealment claim, arguing that it did not defraud Mr. Hess within the twelve-year fraud statute of repose period. The trial court denied the motion. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed for entry of judgment in Defendant’s favor on the fraudulent concealment claim and punitive damages award, concluding that the fraudulent concealment claim and punitive damages award were foreclosed by the statute of repose because Defendant did not defraud Mr. Hess within the repose period. The Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District’s decision and reinstated the jury verdict, holding that Defendant was precluded as a matter of law from raising the fraud statute of repose defense to Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim. View "Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action in California state court alleging that Dollar Tree Stores Inc. violated California state law by denying proper rest breaks to its employees. Dollar Tree removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court granted Plaintiff’s request to remand back to California state court because the CAFA $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied. After remand, a California superior court certified a broader class. Dollar Tree again filed a notice of removal, arguing that the expanded class actually certified placed at least $5 million in controversy. The district court concluded that the second removal was untimely because the order was based on the same complaint that had been the subject of the first removal. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the state court’s class certification order created a new occasion for removal, and the second removal was permissible; (2) the second removal was timely; and (3) because the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA were met, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Remanded. View "Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit in Washington state court against Nationstar Mortgage LLC, alleging several causes of action, including violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationstar filed a notice of removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand the proceeding to state court, arguing that its removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). The district court granted the motion and awarded Plaintiff attorney fees and costs because it found that Nationstar did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removal. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) Nationstar’s removal under CAFA was timely, and therefore, the action properly belonged in federal court; and (2) the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees that was premised on improper removal must be reversed. View "Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that Defendants violated Hawaii law by charging customers of certain hotels service charges without fully disclosing to customers that the charges were not entirely being distributed to non-managerial service employees. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s wage law claims and granted summary judgment for Defendants on the unfair methods of competition (UMOC) claim. Defendants appealed, and Plaintiff cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the unpaid wages but vacated the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants on the UMOC claim and remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiff then requested an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for the appeal and cross-appeal and an award of post judgment interest on the damages. The Supreme Court held (1) Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys’ fees for both the appeal and the cross-appeal, and Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs; and (2) post judgment interest was not appropriate under the circumstances of this case. View "Gurrobat v. HTH Corp." on Justia Law