Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, on behalf of a purported class of similarly situated employees, appealed from the district court's dismissal of their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), NYLL 663(1). Plaintiffs alleged that CHS failed to compensate them adequately for time worked during meal breaks, before and after scheduled shifts, and during required training sessions. The court affirmed the dismissal of the FLSA and RICO claims for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of the NYLL overtime claims, which have the same deficiencies as the FLSA overtime claims. However, because the district court did not explain why plaintiffs' NYLL gap-time claims were dismissed with prejudice, the court vacated that aspect of the judgment and remanded for further consideration. View "Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island Inc." on Justia Law

Southfield appealed the dismissal of its consolidated class-action securities fraud complaint against St. Joe and St. Joe's current and former officers for alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Southfield argued that the district court erred in holding that they failed to adequately plead loss causation, actionable misrepresentation, or scienter, and also by denying their post-judgment motion to alter or amend. The court held that the complaint as framed by Southfield failed to adequately allege loss causation and the district court was therefore correct to dismiss Southfield's complaint for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Southfield Fire & Police Retirement System v. Greene, et al" 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

Plaintiffs and defendants obtained class certification and settlement approval for a nationwide class action involving three related lawsuits, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p and state law, based on the practice of “robo-signing” affidavits in debt collections. Eight individuals objected. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the disparity in the relief afforded under the settlement to the named plaintiffs (exoneration of debts, $2000, and prospective injunctive relief) and the unnamed class members ($17 and prospective injunctive relief) made the settlement unfair. The class notice was inadequate and, although the class satisfies four of the six certification requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality and predominance), the representation is not adequate under Rule 23(a) nor is the class action vehicle superior. View "Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Crevier Motors and BMW, asserting ten California causes of action. At issue was whether BMW timely removed this proposed class action involving Crevier, a California automobile dealership, to federal court by invoking the diversity jurisdiction provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Because nothing in plaintiff's complaint indicated that the amount demanded by each putative class member exceeded $25,000, it fell short of triggering the removal clock under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). The court rejected plaintiff's remaining arguments. Because BMW timely removed under section 1446(b), the court reversed the district court's remand of plaintiff's proposed class action to Orange County Superior Court. In light of that conclusion, the court did not decide whether to join the other circuits in recognizing a "revival exception," which according to BMW gave it another thirty days to remove when plaintiff expanded her suit from one strictly against Crevier to one against all California-BMW dealerships. View "Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services NA LLC" on Justia Law

Antitrust class actions alleged that defendants conspired to set a price floor for baby products. The court initially approved a settlement. Notice was sent to putative class members informing them of their right to submit a claim, opt out, or object. The deadline for submitting claims expired; the court approved the settlement and an allocation plan. Defendants deposited $35,500,000 into a settlement fund. After payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses, the remainder was slated for distribution to the settlement class. Claimants are entitled to different levels of compensation. The remainder would go to charitable organizations proposed by the parties and selected by the court. The Third Circuit vacated, stating that cy pres distributions are permissible, but inferior to direct distributions to the class, because they only imperfectly serve the purpose of compensating class members. The district court did not adequately consider that about $14,000,000 will go to class counsel, roughly $3,000,000 will be distributed to class members, and the rest, approximately $18,500,000 less administrative expenses, will be distributed to cy pres recipients. The court also needs to consider the level of direct benefit to the class in calculating attorneys’ fees. View "In re: Baby Products Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, five retail grocers, each attempting to bring class-action antitrust claims against one of two wholesale grocers, appealed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims from the putative class action. The court held that the non-signatory defendants could not use equitable estoppel to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims. Since the district court found the equitable estoppel issue dispositive, it did not address the successor-in-interest argument and therefore, the court remanded for the district court to consider this argument in the first instance. The court concluded that the remaining public policy arguments were moot or the court declined to issue an advisory opinion. View "King Cole Foods, Inc., et al v. SuperValu, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought this putative class action under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act, alleging that a prospectus and registration statement (the offering documents) issued by AMAG Pharmaceutical, Inc. in connection with a secondary stock offering held in 2010 contained two serious omissions: (1) a failure to disclose almost two dozen reports of serious adverse effects linked to a make-or-break drug for AMAG's future; and (2) failure to disclose information the FDA revealed in a warning letter issued after the offering. The district court dismissed the entire complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs failed sufficiently to plead section 11 claims pursuant to an SEC regulation. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed the dismissal of the claims of actionable omissions because of the undisclosed reports because the reports gave rise to uncertainties AMAG knew would adversely affect future revenues and risk factors that made the offering risky and speculative; (2) affirmed as to the claims of omissions regarding the FDA information; and (3) reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' sections 12 and 15 causes of action. Remanded. View "Silverstrand Invs. v. Amag Pharms., Inc." on Justia Law

A class of about 1,600 Minnesota delivery drivers employed by Domino's Pizza alleged that, under Minnesota law, a fixed delivery charge that customers paid Domino's was a gratuity wrongfully withheld from them. The court held that the varied context of the pizza delivery transactions made it unreasonable for some customers to construe the delivery charge as a payment for personal services, thereby preventing one-stroke determination of a classwide question. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion by certifying the class. Accordingly, the court reversed the class certification order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Luiken, et al v. Domino's Pizza, LLC" on Justia Law

Between 1994 and 1997 Wyeth’s predecessor sold fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, prescription weight loss drugs. After the drugs were linked to valvular heart disease and an FDA public health advisory, Wyeth withdrew the drugs from the market in 1997. Thousands of individuals filed suit; the cases were consolidated. In 1999, Wyeth entered into a Settlement Agreement; in 2000, the court certified the class, approved the Agreement, and retained jurisdiction. The Agreement enjoins class members from suing Wyeth for diet drug-related injuries, but allows class members to sue Wyeth if they can demonstrate that they developed PPH (a condition that deprives the lungs of oxygen) at a specified level through the use of the diet drugs. In 2011, Cauthen sued, alleging that she developed PPH. She produced a pulmonary consultation prepared by Fortin, a cardiologist. Because Cauthen’s report showed that lung capacity of less than 60 percent of predicted at rest, Wyeth sought to enjoin the state court lawsuit for failing to satisfy the precondition provided by the Agreement. Dr. Fortin asserted that comparing individual lung capacity with average capacity of persons having a similar demographic profile is not determinative in diagnosing PPH. The district court enjoined the suit. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "In Re: Diet Drugs Prod. Liab. Litig." on Justia Law