Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Class Actions”

Class Actions

SCOTUS Holds Class Plaintiffs Cannot Voluntarily Dismiss Claims to Appeal Denial of Class Cert

The Supreme Court of the United States recently held that class action plaintiffs cannot stipulate to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, then appeal the trial court’s prior interlocutory order striking their class allegations because a voluntary dismissal does not qualify as a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. §1291 and improperly circumvents Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). A copy of the opinion in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker et al. is available at:  Link to Opinion. A group of purchasers of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 gaming console filed a putative class action alleging that the Xbox was designed defectively because it scratched…

8th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of TCPA Class Action Based on Consent Shown in Heavily Redacted Records

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action brought under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for making unsolicited telemarketing calls. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff had given prior express written consent to receive the calls, and the trial court properly considered redacted business records that showed the consumer had given his prior express written consent to be called. A copy of the opinion in Zean v. Fairview Health Services is available at:  Link to Opinion. A consumer who purchased a medical device filed a putative class…

8th Cir. Holds Removal Proper Where Absence of CAFA Jurisdiction Not ‘Established to a Legal Certainty’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the requirements for the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) were met and the matter was properly removed to federal court, where the plaintiffs could not “establish to a legal certainty” that their claims were for less than the requisite amount. A copy of the opinion in Dammann v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff insureds purchased automobile insurance from the insurer. The insureds’ policies required deductible payments of $100 for medical expense payments and $200 for economic loss payments.  Both policies provided…

4th Cir. Vacates $11M FCRA Class Action Judgment Citing Spokeo

Relying on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently vacated and remanded for dismissal a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the plaintiff in an $11 million, 69,000 member class action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., where the defendant credit reporting agency listed the name of a defunct credit card issuer instead of the name of the servicer as the source of information on the plaintiff’s credit report. In so ruling, the Fourth Circuit held that the…

9th Cir. Holds Consolidated ‘Bellweather Trial’ of Multiple Actions Did Not Meet CAFA’s ‘Mass Action’ Requirements

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed that consolidating multiple actions for pre-trial purposes and a bellweather-trial process is insufficient to justify the removal of those actions to federal court under the “mass action” provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit rejected several arguments the removing defendant made based on language contained in the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate.  The Court concluded that even though, as consolidated, the matters satisfied the numerosity requirement of a “mass action” under CAFA, the plaintiffs did not intend a joint trial for all of…

8th Cir. Holds ‘Citizen’ Does Not Equal ‘Resident’ Under CAFA’s ‘Local Controversy’ Exception

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that “citizen” is not synonymous with “resident” under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), such that the class action lawsuit at issue could not be remanded to state court under CAFA’s “local controversy” exception but rather should remain in federal court. A copy of the opinion in Tammy Hargett v. St. Bernard’s Hospital Inc, et al is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff was injured in a car accident and received treatment at a hospital, which required her to assign her Medicaid beneficiary rights to it. The hospital later contracted with…

7th Cir. Reverses Class Cert, Dismisses Lawsuit for Lack of Standing Under Spokeo

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s grant of class certification and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case with prejudice because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, having shown no injury in fact as required under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. A copy of the opinion Eike v. Allergan, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. A consumer plaintiff filed a putative class action against six pharmaceutical companies that manufacture eye drops to treat glaucoma. The complaint alleged that they violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and…

8th Cir. Confirms Doc Prep Fees Violate Missouri UPL Statute, Upholds Application to Out-of-State Class Members Due to Choice-of-Law Provision

In a “doc prep fee UPL” class action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s rulings as to class certification and application of a choice-of-law provision on a class-wide basis. In so ruling, the Court also reversed and remanded the lower court’s determination that the attorney’s fees for the class counsel should be paid solely from the common fund in light of the fee shifting provision in the contract. A copy of the opinion in Robert McKeage  v.  TMBC, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion. The named class plaintiffs purchased a boat…

11th Cir. Holds CAFA’s ‘Local Controversy’ Exception Does Not Preclude Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the federal Class Action Fairness Act’s (CAFA) local-controversy provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4), does not preclude a federal trial court from exercising federal-question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the federal trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the matter to state court following the defendants’ removal. A copy of the opinion in Blevins v. Aksut is available at:  Link to Opinion. The litigation involved a defendant doctor’s alleged performance of unnecessary heart procedures on the plaintiffs.  Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant doctor would…

8th Cir. Reverses Data Breach Class Settlement, Holds Appellate Bond Not to Include Delay-Based Administrative Costs

In a data breach putative class action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the trial court had not conducted the required “rigorous analysis” of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)’s class certification prerequisites when certifying the settlement class or when evaluating arguments raised by class objectors. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit also reversed the trial court’s ruling on the amount of the appeal bond, holding that an appellate bond should not include costs associated with delays in administering a class action settlement while the matter was on appeal. A copy of the opinion in Jim…

Ninth Circuit Torpedoes FDCPA Class Settlement as ‘Worthless’

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a class action settlement as “worthless” for absent class members in a recent federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case. The decision represents another addition to the growing list of FDCPA and other consumer-related class action settlements facing tough scrutiny where absent class members receive minimal or no monetary relief in proportion to their release of future claims, while class representatives and their counsel receive handsome rewards. A copy of the opinion in Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. The case arose from a voicemail message seeking…

8th Cir. Holds Trial Court Did Not Err in Using ‘Percentage of the Benefit’ Over ‘Lodestar’ in TCPA Class Fee Award Dispute

In an appeal involving the settlement of four separate class actions under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by electing to use the “percentage-of-the-benefit” method to calculate class counsel’s fee award, as opposed to the “lodestar” method. The Eighth Circuit also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the respective class counsel to distribute the award amongst themselves without judicial oversight or approval. A copy of the opinion in Lindsey Thut  v.  Life Time…