Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant Kalispell Regional Medical Center (KRMC). Defendant Northwest Healthcare Corporation (NWHC) was the parent corporation of the remaining defendant entities. This case arose out of a dispute over the discontinuation of a sick leave buy-back program. Defendants appealed the order of the district court granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly determined that the named Plaintiffs had standing to bring claims against defendants they did not directly work for because the juridically linked Defendants were operating under a common scheme; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class under Mont. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). View "Chipman v. Nw. Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

The Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), the Alabama Corrections Institution Finance Authority ("ACIFA"), and Kim Thomas, in his official capacities as the commissioner of ADOC and as ex officio vice president of ACIFA, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its May 2012 order denying their motion seeking a partial summary judgment and requested the court enter a new order granting their motion. In 2010, Albert Wilson, Rufus Barnes, Joseph Danzey, Bryan Gavins, and Donald Simmons, all of whom were employed by ADOC as correctional officers, sued ADOC and its then commissioner Richard Allen alleging that ADOC was violating its own regulations and state law in the manner in which it: (1) compensated correctional officers for overtime; (2) restricted the way correctional officers were allowed to use earned leave; and (3) paid correctional officers the daily subsistence allowance provided by law. The plaintiffs also sought class certification on behalf of all other similarly situated correctional officers employed by ADOC and requested injunctive relief, as well as money damages, to include backpay with interest, punitive damages, and litigation costs and expenses, including attorney fees. Because ADOC and Thomas, in his official capacity as commissioner of ADOC, were entitled to State immunity on those claims, the Court granted the petition as to ADOC and Thomas, in his capacity as commissioner of ADOC, and issued the writ. However, ACIFA and Thomas, in his official capacity as vice president of ACIFA, did not argue that they were entitled to State immunity on the claims asserted against them; rather, they argued that those claims lacked merit. That argument presented an insufficient basis upon which to issue a writ of mandamus, and the Supreme Court therefore denied the petition with regard to the those claims because ACIFA and Thomas had an adequate remedy on appeal. View "Wilson v. Thomas " on Justia Law

Diana Albrecht brought a class-action lawsuit against Alaska Trustee, LLC, on behalf of a group of Alaska homeowners who had faced foreclosure on their homes. Alaska Trustee, acting as foreclosure trustee, had provided Albrecht and the other homeowners reinstatement quotes that included the costs of foreclosure. Albrecht maintained that the inclusion of foreclosure costs in her reinstatement quote violated her right to cure under a former version of AS 34.20.070(b), the non-judicial foreclosure statute, which provided that a homeowner’s "default may be cured by payment of the sum in default other than the principal that would not then be due if no default had occurred, plus attorney fees or court costs actually incurred by the trustee due to the default." According to Albrecht, Alaska Trustee's inclusion of foreclosure costs in addition to "attorney's fees or court costs" constituted a violation of not only the non-judicial foreclosure statute but also Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The superior court concluded that Albrecht lacked standing to sue and denied her motion for class certification. The superior court further ruled that Alaska Trustee's practice of including various fees and charges as foreclosure costs was permitted under the statute. The superior court awarded attorney's fees to Alaska Trustee as the prevailing party, enhancing those fees under AS 45.50.537(b) on the ground that Albrecht's claims were frivolous. Because the inclusion of foreclosure costs in a reinstatement quote did not violate AS 34.20.070, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court in most respects. But because the Court concluded that Albrecht’s claims were not frivolous and attorney's fees could not be awarded under Rule 82 for time spent litigating the structure of a class action, the Court remanded for recalculation of fees awarded. View "Albrecht v. Alaska Trustee, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kenneth Bond and Deborah Thibault, on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, appealed a superior court order granting summary judgment to the defendants, the City of Manchester and Paul Martineau in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Manchester Welfare Department (collectively, the City). In January 2010, the plaintiffs applied for general assistance from the City pursuant to RSA chapter 165. See RSA 165:1, I (2002). On February 24, 2010, the City approved $140.00 per week in rental assistance. On March 18, 2010, the City suspended this assistance for seven days because of the plaintiffs' failure to provide certain documentation, including that which related to $30 the plaintiffs used to buy gas for a vehicle. The City lifted this suspension on March 25, 2010, noting that the plaintiffs were "unable to show compliance with the $30 purchase of vehicle gas that [they] stated [they] had previously purchased through an alternate financial resource." On April 9, 2010, the City revoked an April 8 voucher and denied the plaintiffs all assistance for six months because they had misrepresented information related to their vehicle. The plaintiffs petitioned the superior court to enjoin the City from suspending their assistance. Because the Supreme Court held that RSA 165:1-b and the Guidelines pertaining to rental assistance actually conflict, the Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Bond v. Martineau" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to seventy years' imprisonment. For his only point on appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in not allowing testimony concerning the victim's prior sexual conduct. Under the state's rape-shield law, evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct is not admissible by the defendant for any purpose unless the circuit court makes a written determination that such evidence is relevant to a fact in issue and that its probative value outweighs its inflammatory or prejudicial nature. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's arguments were not preserved for appeal. View "Stewart v. State" on Justia Law

Three certified questions came before the court from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning application of the farm labor contractors act (FLCA), chapter 19.30 RCW. The primary question asked whether a trial court, if awarding statutory damages under the civil remedies provision of the FLCA must award $500 per plaintiff per violation. Upon review, the Washington Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The second question asked whether requiring a trial court to award $500 per plaintiff per violation violated due process or public policy; the Court answered in the negative, expressly limiting its analysis and holding on this question to state due process principles and statutes. The third question asked whether the FLCA provided for awarding statutory damages to persons who have not been shown to have been aggrieved by a particular violation. "Because our standing jurisprudence tracks that of the United States Supreme Court, we leave to the Ninth Circuit to answer this question based on its standing jurisprudence and the standing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court." View "Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc." on Justia Law

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions if the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2),(5), and provides that to determine whether a matter exceeds that amount the “claims of the individual class members must be aggregated.” When Knowles filed a proposed class action in Arkansas state court against Standard Fire Insurance, he stipulated that he and the class would seek less than $5 million in damages. Following removal, the district court remanded to state court, concluding that the amount in controversy fell below the CAFA threshold in light of Knowles’ stipulation, although the amount would have fallen above the threshold absent the stipulation. The Eighth Circuit declined to hear an appeal. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. Knowles’ stipulation does not defeat federal jurisdiction under CAFA. The stipulation does not speak for those Knowles purports to represent; a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified. CAFA does not forbid a federal court to consider the possibility that a nonbinding, amount-limiting, stipulation may not survive the class certification process. The Court noted CAFA’s objective: ensuring “Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance.” View "Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles" on Justia Law

To recover damages in a private securities-fraud action under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b–5, a plaintiff must prove reliance on a material misrepresentation or omission made by the defendant. The Supreme Court has endorsed a “fraud-on-the-market” theory, which permits plaintiffs to invoke a rebuttable presumption of reliance on public, material misrepresentations regarding securities traded in an efficient market. The theory facilitates the certification of securities-fraud class actions by permitting reliance to be proved on a class-wide basis. Connecticut Retirement sought FRCP 23(b)(3) certification of a securities-fraud class action against a biotechnology company (Amgen). The district court certified the class. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that Connecticut Retirement was required to prove materiality before class certification under Rule23(b)(3)’s requirement that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” The Supreme Court affirmed. Proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a securities-fraud class action. Materiality is judged by an objective standard and can be proved through evidence common to the class. Failure of proof of materiality would not result in individual questions predominating, but would end the case. A requirement that putative class representatives establish that they executed trades “between the time the misrepresentations were made and the time the truth was r¬vealed” relates primarily to typicality and adequacy of representation, not to the predominance inquiry. The Court rejected Amgen’s argument that, because of pressure to settle, materiality may never be addressed by a court if it is not evaluated at the class-certification stage. The potential immateriality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions was no barrier to finding that common questions predominate. View "Amgen Inc. v. CT Ret. Plans & Trust Funds" on Justia Law

Respondents, current or former employees of petitioner Wal-Mart, sought judgment against the company for injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of some 1.5 million female employees because of Wal-Mart's alleged discrimination against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq. At issue was whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). The Court held that certification of the plaintiff class was not consistent with Rule 23(a) where proof of commonality necessarily overlapped with respondents' merits contention that Wal-mart engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for the employment decisions, it would be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims would produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question. The Court concluded that in a company Wal-Mart's size and geographical scope, it was unlikely that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction and respondents' attempt to show such direction by means of statistical and anecdotal evidence fell well short. The Court also held that respondents' backpay claims were improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2) where claims for monetary relief could not be certified under the rule. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.View "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al." on Justia Law

In this case, a Federal District Court enjoined a state court from considering a plaintiff's request to approve a class action. The District Court did so because it had earlier denied a motion to certify a class in a related case, brought by a different plaintiff against the same defendant alleging similar claims. The federal court thought its injunction appropriate to prevent relitigation of the issue it had decided. The Court held to the contrary and found that, in issuing the order to a state court, the federal court exceeded its authority under the "relitigation exception" of the Anti-Injunction Act ("Act"), 28 U.S.C. 2283, where the statutory provision permitted a federal court to enjoin a state proceeding only in rare cases, when necessary to "protect or effectuate [the federal court's] judgments." The Court held that the standard was not met in this case for two reasons. First, the issue presented in the state court was not identical to the one decided in the federal tribunal. Second, the plaintiff in the state court did not have the requisite connection to federal suit to be bound by the District Court's judgment.View "Smith v. Bayer Corp." on Justia Law