Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) prohibits the misbranding of any food. A food is deemed to be misbranded if it meets any of the definitions in 21 U.S.C. Section 343. To implement this subsection, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) promulgated regulations governing the nutrition labeling of dietary supplements. Plaintiff alleged that she and other consumers were damaged because “they paid for a product that they would not have purchased had it truthfully disclosed that it did not contain Glucosamine Sulfate.” The second amended complaint claimed violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, unjust enrichment, restitution, and breach of warranty. The district court concluded that Walmart had carried its burden of showing Plaintiff’s state-law claims were preempted by federal law.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Walmart Inc. The panel held that Defendant’s proposed rule to the contrary was preempted. The holding in Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp., 907 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 2018), did not provide otherwise. Nothing in Durnford suggested its analysis applied only to the nutrition panel. The panel concluded that Defendant’s claims were preempted, and Walmart was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "DARLENE HOLLINS, ET AL V. WALMART INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

A group consisting primarily of union health and welfare insurance plans claims that Abbvie, the manufacturer of the drug Niaspan, paid off a potential manufacturer of a generic version of the drug to delay the generic’s launch. This putative class action was brought to recover damages based on the allegedly inflated prices charged by Abbvie in violation of state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The district court denied a motion for class certification, finding that the class was not ascertainable.The Third Circuit affirmed, declining to reconsider its “ascertainability” requirement. The court rejected an argument that the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous because the court misunderstood their proposed methodology, overstated the prevalence of intermediaries in the pharmacy benefit managers’ data, and failed to consider the use of affidavits as a means of identifying class members. The court further noted that the new suggestion concerning affidavits was not properly put before the district court. The district court properly concluded that the proposed data matching technique is unreliable. View "In Re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Medical Center seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging violations of the unfair competition law (UCL) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) in connection with Medical Center’s emergency room billing practices. Briefly summarized, Plaintiff alleged Medical Center’s practice of charging him (and other similarly situated patients) an undisclosed “Evaluation and Management Services Fee” (EMS Fee) was an “unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practice.” The trial entered judgment in favor of Defendants.   The Fifth Appellate District reversed. The court held that Plaintiff sought a declaration of the parties' rights and duties under the COA and their legal rights in connection with EMS Fee disclosures. An actual controversy is alleged and appears to exist. Plaintiff is entitled to seek declaratory relief in regard to each controversy stated. The court concluded he has adequately stated a cause of action for declaratory relief. The court wrote that on remand, the trial court will have the discretion to consider a motion by Plaintiff to amend the FAC to state a cause of action for breach of contract should Plaintiff choose to file one. View "Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc." on Justia Law

When a Michigan county forecloses on a property because its owner has failed to pay property taxes, Michigan law permits the county to obtain ownership of the property outright—even if its value exceeds the taxes owed. Fox owed about $3,000 in unpaid taxes, Gratiot County took his land. He valued the property at over $50,000. The county treasurer sold it for over $25,000. Fox did not receive any of the surplus. The Sixth Circuit has previously held that similar conduct was an unconstitutional “taking.”Fox filed a class action against Gratiot County on behalf of himself and similar landowners and sued 26 other counties, arguing that they engaged in the same conduct against other delinquent taxpayers. The district court certified a class, holding that Fox had standing to sue these other counties under the “juridical link doctrine,” under which a named plaintiff in a putative class action can sue defendants who have not injured the plaintiff if these defendants have injured absent class members.The Sixth Circuit vacated. The judicial link doctrine conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedent holding that a class-action request “adds nothing to the question of standing.” Fox lacks standing to sue the 26 other counties. In individual litigation, a plaintiff lacks standing to sue a defendant if the plaintiff’s injuries are not “fairly traceable” to that defendant. Expediency concerns cannot supplant Article III’s separation-of-powers protections. View "Fox v. Saginaw County, Michigan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting in part and denying in part Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to dismiss this putative class action alleging violations of Plaintiffs' rights under various state and federal wage and hour laws, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiffs sued Cultural Care, a private company that places au pairs with host families in various states, alleging that the company qualified as an "employer" under the respective states' wage and hour laws and not only failed to pay Plaintiffs what they were owed but that Cultural Care violated the Family Leave Act and other laws. Cultural Care filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that it was shielded from immunity under the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity as set forth in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 20-22 (1940). The district court dismissed the state law deceptive trade practices claims under Connecticut and Washington law for lack of standing but otherwise denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Cultural Care was not entitled to protection under Yearsley at this stage of the litigation. View "Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc." on Justia Law

Greater Birmingham Ministries (“GBM”), an Alabamian non-profit organization dedicated to aiding low-income individuals, and several Alabamian felons (collectively “Appellants”) appealed the district court’s summary judgment denying their Equal Protection Clause challenge to Amendment 579 of the Alabama state constitution, their Ex Post Facto Clause, challenge to Amendment 579’s disenfranchisement provisions, and their National Voting Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), challenge to the format of Alabama’s mail voting registration form.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that (1) Amendment 579 successfully dissipated any taint from the racially discriminatory motives behind the 1901 Alabama constitution; (2) Amendment 579 does not impose punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (3) Alabama’s mail voting registration form complies with the NVRA. The court wrote that it rejects Appellants’ invitation to review the extent the Alabama legislature debated the “moral turpitude” language of Amendment 579. Further, the court explained that Section 20508(b)(2)(A) is a notice statute enacted for the convenience of voting registrants. Alabama’s mail-in voting form has provided sufficient notice by informing registrants that persons convicted of disqualifying felonies are not eligible to vote and providing an easily accessible link whereby voters convicted of felonies can determine their voter eligibility. Accordingly, Alabama has complied with the requirements of Section 20508(b)(2)(A). View "Treva Thompson, et al. v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming a modified version of the order of the district court certifying a class, holding that when the claims for which the plaintiffs seek class certification have no basis in law, even taking all the allegations as true, class certification cannot be granted.Tenants sued Landlord alleging a violation of Tex. Prop. Code 92.056(g), arguing that Landlord was strictly liable for omitting a required lease term. Tenants sought class certification of a class of more than 65,000 former tenants. Landlord moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lawsuit amounted to an "ineffectual[] attempt to manufacture strict-liability requirements and civil-penalty remedies that do not exist under a plain reading of the Texas Property Code." The district court granted the motion for class certification, and the court of appeals affirmed as modified. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where Tenants' proposed class claims had no basis law, the "rigorous analysis" necessary to certify the class could not meaningfully be performed. View "American Campus Communities, Inc. v. Berry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's order certifying a class in this action claiming violations of Tex. Prop. Code 92.019, which regulates landlords' ability to impose late fees on tenants who untimely pay their rent, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to address Petitioners' defenses in the trial plan and their effects on the requirement for class certification.Respondent sued Petitioners for breach of Tex. Prop. Code 92.019 for charging and collecting late fees and charging back rent concessions. Respondent later moved for class certification. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing correctly to identify the elements of Petitioners' defenses in the trial plan and address their effect on the requirements for class certification in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(c)(1)(D). View "Mosaic Baybrook Once, L.P. v. Cessor" on Justia Law

In this dispute over a "Water/Sewer Base Fee" that Landlords billed tenants each month to recover certain amounts it had paid the municipal utility district the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in Tenant's favor and the court of appeals' judgment affirming the trial court's order certifying a class under Rule 24 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that there was no error.Tenant brought suit against Landlords challenging a fee that included not only each apartment's allocated portion of the utility's customer service charge for water and sewer service but also an undisclosed amount equivalent to a portion of the utility's charges for non-water emergency services. Tenant sued under the Water Code on behalf of a tenant class. The trial court granted Landlords' motion for partial summary judgment on liability and certified a class. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in granting partial summary judgment; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. View "Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P. v. Simien" on Justia Law

Adams and Mounts mined coal in Kentucky. Both wore respirators to protect their lungs but nevertheless developed pneumoconiosis, a disease caused by inhaled dust particles. They sued 3M and other out-of-state respirator manufacturers and distributors. Adams’ complaint named more than 400 co-plaintiffs. Mounts’ complaint named more than 300 co-plaintiffs. 3M removed the cases to federal court. The district court remanded to state court.On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the remand order. The 2005 Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) extends federal diversity jurisdiction to certain “mass action[s]” involving “100 or more persons,” 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(11)(B)(i) and permits removal of any civil action “in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.” These complaints did that. Claims presented in a single complaint proceed through a common trial process absent an order to the contrary; when the plaintiffs each filed complaints with more than 100 co-plaintiffs, they offered to try their co-plaintiffs’ claims jointly. Both complaints sought “a trial by jury” and a singular “judgment,” not multiple trials and judgments. By filing a complaint predicated on a “common” “question of law or fact,” the plaintiffs offered the presence of common questions as a “ground” for pursuing a joint trial, View "Adams v. 3M Co." on Justia Law