Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

David and Bonnie Faulk, residents of Alaska, purchased over one hundred windows from Spenard Builders Supply for their custom-built home and alleged that the windows, manufactured by JELD-WEN, were defective in breach of an oral warranty. They filed a class action in Alaska state court against Spenard Builders Supply, an Alaska corporation, and JELD-WEN, a Delaware corporation, asserting state-law claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which allows federal jurisdiction based on minimal diversity in class actions.After removal, the Faulks amended their complaint to remove all class action allegations and sought to remand the case to state court. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska denied their motion to remand, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent that held federal jurisdiction under CAFA is determined at the time of removal and is not affected by post-removal amendments. The district court allowed the amendment to eliminate class allegations but ultimately dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, finding most claims time-barred and one insufficiently pled.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, which held that federal jurisdiction depends on the operative complaint, including post-removal amendments. The Ninth Circuit concluded that, after the Faulks removed their class action allegations, the sole basis for federal jurisdiction under CAFA was eliminated, and complete diversity was lacking. The court vacated the district court’s order dismissing the complaint and remanded with instructions to remand the case to state court unless another basis for federal jurisdiction is established. View "FAULK V. JELD-WEN, INC." on Justia Law

Several employees of the City and County of San Francisco who joined the city’s retirement system at age 40 or older and later retired due to disability challenged the method used to calculate their disability retirement benefits. The city’s retirement system uses two formulas: Formula 1, which provides a higher benefit if certain thresholds are met, and Formula 2, which imputes service years until age 60 but caps the benefit at a percentage of final compensation. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2 discriminates against employees who enter the system at age 40 or above, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).Initially, the San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained the city’s demurrer, finding the plaintiffs had not timely filed an administrative charge. The California Court of Appeal reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed. After class certification and cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found triable issues and held a bench trial. At trial, plaintiffs presented expert testimony based on hypothetical calculations, while the city’s expert criticized the lack of actual data analysis and highlighted factors such as breaks in service and purchased credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s post-trial decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found substantial evidence that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not age. The plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient because it relied on hypotheticals rather than actual data showing a disproportionate adverse effect on the protected group. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend the complaint, finding no reversible error. The judgment in favor of the city was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

Bloom Energy, a company specializing in fuel-cell servers, entered into Managed Services Agreements (MSAs), which are sale-leaseback arrangements involving banks and customers. The company initially classified these MSAs as operating leases, based on its assessment that the lease terms were less than 75% of the servers’ estimated useful lives and that the servers were not “integral equipment.” This classification affected how Bloom Energy reported revenue and liabilities in its financial statements. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) was engaged to audit Bloom Energy’s 2016 and 2017 financial statements, which were prepared by Bloom Energy’s management, and PwC issued an audit opinion stating that the financial statements were fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.After Bloom Energy went public in 2018, it later restated its financial statements, reclassifying certain MSAs as capital leases following a review prompted by PwC’s identification of an accounting issue. This restatement led to a significant drop in Bloom Energy’s stock price. Plaintiffs, consisting of shareholders, filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Bloom Energy, its officers, directors, underwriters, and later added PwC as a defendant. They alleged violations of § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, claiming that PwC was liable for material misstatements in the registration statement due to its audit opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against PwC. The Ninth Circuit held that under § 11, an independent accountant is not strictly liable for information in a registration statement or financial statements merely because it certified them. PwC’s audit opinion was a statement of subjective judgment, protected as an opinion under Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, and did not contain actionable misstatements or omissions. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against PwC. View "HUNT V. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP" on Justia Law

The plaintiff purchased products from a company’s “Sustainability Collection,” which were advertised as sustainable and environmentally friendly. She alleged that these representations were false because the products were made with virgin synthetic and non-organic materials that are harmful to the environment. The plaintiff claimed that she would not have bought the products, or would have paid less, had she known the truth. She brought a putative class action under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, asserting that the company’s advertising was misleading.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri first considered and dismissed the plaintiff’s initial complaint for failure to state a claim, after which she filed an amended complaint. The company again moved to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint lacked sufficient factual support and did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled. The district court agreed, finding that the amended complaint failed to provide facts making the plaintiff’s claims plausible and did not meet the required pleading standards. The court dismissed the case without specifying whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The plaintiff then filed a post-judgment motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend, which the district court denied, citing her failure to properly request leave to amend before judgment and her delay in doing so.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed only whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. The Eighth Circuit held that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits (i.e., with prejudice) unless the order states otherwise. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ellis v. Nike USA, Inc." on Justia Law

A train operated by Norfolk Southern carrying hazardous materials derailed near East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023. The cleanup released toxic chemicals into the surrounding area, prompting affected residents and businesses to file suit against the railroad and other parties in federal court. These cases were consolidated into a master class action, and after extensive discovery and mediation, Norfolk Southern agreed to a $600 million settlement for the class. The district court for the Northern District of Ohio approved the settlement in September 2024. Five class members objected and appealed, but the district court required them to post an $850,000 appeal bond by January 30, 2025, to cover administrative and taxable costs. The objectors did not pay the bond or offer a lesser amount.After the bond order, the objectors filed a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to eliminate or reduce the bond, but did not seek a stay. The Sixth Circuit motions panel explained that, absent a separate notice of appeal, it could only address the bond on a motion to stay, which the objectors expressly disclaimed. The objectors then moved in the district court to extend the time to appeal the bond order, but did so one day after the deadline set by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A). The district court denied the motion as untimely, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the deadlines for appealing and requesting extensions are jurisdictional and cannot be equitably extended. The court dismissed the objectors’ appeal of the motion to extend for lack of jurisdiction and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the objectors’ appeals of the settlement for failure to pay the required bond. View "In re E. Palestine Train Derailment" on Justia Law

Cocoa AJ Holdings, LLC is the developer of a mixed-use condominium project in San Francisco known as GS Heritage Place, which includes both timeshare and whole residential units. Stephen Schneider owns a timeshare interest in one of the fractional units and has voting rights in the homeowners association. In 2018, Schneider filed a class action lawsuit against Cocoa and others, alleging improper management practices, including the use of fractional units as hotel rooms and misallocation of expenses. The parties settled that lawsuit in 2020, with Schneider agreeing not to disparage Cocoa or solicit further claims against it, and to cooperate constructively in future dealings.In 2022, Schneider initiated another lawsuit against Cocoa. In response, Cocoa filed a cross-complaint against Schneider, alleging intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of contract (the settlement agreement), unjust enrichment, and defamation. Cocoa claimed Schneider engaged in a campaign to prevent the sale of unsold units as whole units, formed unofficial owner groups, made disparaging statements, and threatened litigation, all of which allegedly violated the prior settlement agreement and harmed Cocoa’s economic interests.Schneider moved to strike the cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing that Cocoa’s claims arose from his protected activities—namely, petitioning the courts and speaking on matters of public interest related to association management. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granted Schneider’s motion, finding that all claims in the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and that Cocoa failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that Cocoa’s claims were based on Schneider’s protected litigation and association management activities, and that Cocoa did not establish a likelihood of success on any of its claims. View "Cocoa AJ Holdings, LLC v. Schneider" on Justia Law

After a series of chemical explosions at an industrial plant in Crosby, Texas, following Hurricane Harvey, property owners and lessees in the affected area experienced contamination and property damage. These individuals, including the appellants, initially participated in a federal class action seeking both injunctive and monetary relief for the harm caused by the explosions. The federal district court certified a class for injunctive relief but declined to certify a class for monetary damages. Subsequently, a class settlement addressed only injunctive relief, leaving monetary claims unresolved.Following the settlement, nearly 800 class members, including the appellants, filed individual lawsuits in Texas state court seeking monetary damages for their property-related claims. The appellants acknowledged that their claims accrued in September 2017 and were subject to a two-year statute of limitations, but argued that the pendency of the federal class action tolled the limitations period under Texas law. Arkema, the defendant, removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and moved to dismiss, asserting that Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling—meaning a federal class action does not toll the state statute of limitations. The district court consolidated the cases and dismissed the claims as untimely, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that, under its binding precedent, Texas law does not permit cross-jurisdictional tolling of statutes of limitations based on the pendency of a federal class action. The court rejected the appellants’ arguments for exceptions to this rule and found no intervening Texas authority to the contrary. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the appellants’ claims as time-barred. View "Ackerman v. Arkema" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee in Nevada worked for a large retailer that required workers to undergo COVID-19 testing before each shift, following state emergency orders and workplace safety recommendations. The company did not pay employees for the time spent on these pre-shift tests. The employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of Nevada’s wage-hour statutes and the state constitution, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage, overtime, and timely payment upon termination.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, which had argued that the time spent on COVID-19 testing was not compensable “work” under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA). The district court held that Nevada law had not incorporated the PPA, and thus the pre-shift screenings were compensable. The court then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Nevada, asking whether Nevada law incorporates the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the certified question and determined that Nevada’s wage-hour statutes do not incorporate the PPA’s broad exceptions to compensable work. The court found that Nevada law provides only narrow, specific exceptions to work compensation, unlike the PPA’s general exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court concluded that the Nevada Legislature did not intend to adopt the PPA’s exceptions, as reflected in the statutory language and legislative history. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question in the negative, holding that Nevada’s wage-hour laws do not incorporate the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work. View "AMAZON.COM SERVS., LLC VS. MALLOY" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles implemented the recycLA program in 2017, establishing exclusive franchise agreements with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services for commercial and multi-unit residential properties. Under these agreements, haulers paid the City a percentage of their gross receipts as a franchise fee. Several property owners and tenants who paid for waste hauling services under this system filed a consolidated class action against the City, alleging that the franchise fees were actually an unlawful tax imposed without voter approval, in violation of Proposition 218 and related constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs sought refunds of the alleged illegal taxes and declaratory relief regarding the validity of the fees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County considered the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. While the court found the proposed class sufficiently numerous and ascertainable, and agreed that the question of whether the franchise fees constituted an illegal tax was subject to common proof, it identified a fundamental problem: not all proposed class members suffered an economic loss, as some landlords and property owners may have passed the cost of the fees on to tenants. The court concluded that entitlement to refunds was not susceptible to common proof and that individual issues predominated over common ones. It also found that a class action was not the superior method for resolving the dispute, due to the risk of unjust enrichment and the complexity of determining who actually bore the cost of the fees. The court denied class certification.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order under the substantial evidence standard. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that individual issues predominated and that class treatment was not superior. The order denying class certification was affirmed. View "Leeds v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, each holding checking accounts with a bank, brought a class action lawsuit challenging the bank’s practices regarding overdraft fees. One plaintiff alleged that the bank breached its contract by charging multiple overdraft fees on transactions that did not initially overdraw the account but were later settled when the account was already overdrawn. The other plaintiff claimed a breach of contract when the bank charged multiple overdraft fees for repeated attempts to process a single payment that was returned for insufficient funds. Both plaintiffs sought to represent similarly situated customers.The Shawnee District Court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss, relying on a contract provision requiring customers to notify the bank of any “errors or improper charges” within 30 days of receiving their account statement. The court found this notice provision unambiguous and concluded that, because the plaintiffs did not provide timely notice, they were barred from bringing their claims. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the term “improper charges” in the contract was ambiguous and that the district court improperly engaged in fact-finding at the motion to dismiss stage. The appellate court determined that whether the notice provision applied was a factual question and that the ambiguity should be construed against the bank as the contract’s drafter.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeals that the term “improper charges” was ambiguous. The Supreme Court went further, holding that this ambiguity must be construed against the bank, and as a matter of law, the notice provision did not apply to the overdraft fees at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court’s dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Harding v. Capitol Federal Savings Bank " on Justia Law