SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge in an order filed Feb. 16 certified a class of drivers suing Uber Technologies Inc. and its subsidiary Rasier LLC (collectively, Uber) for changing the pricing policy in 2016 and keeping a larger percentage of each fare, allegedly violating its agreement with the drivers (Martin Dulberg, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 17-850, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26222).
BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts on Feb. 15 dismissed breach of implied warranty claims brought by three of four leading plaintiffs in a class action suit over allegedly faulty composite decking that prematurely swells and cracks, finding that the claims were untimely because they accrued at the time the plaintiffs discovered the defects (Anthony Pagliaroni, et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors Inc., et al., No. 12-10164-DJC, D. Mass., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250096).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Plaintiffs alleging negligence by Intuit Inc. related to incidents of fraudulent tax return filings were denied the opportunity to pursue an interlocutory appeal of an order compelling arbitration on Feb. 16, when a California federal judge concluded that an appeal would not serve to advance resolution of the case (In re Intuit Data Litigation, No. 5:15-cv-01778, N.D. Calif.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Allergan plc and subsidiary SkinMedica on Feb. 16 said they settled a purported class action lawsuit alleging that certain “cosmeceuticals” contain undeclared and unapproved human growth factors (Josette Ruhnke, et al. v. SkinMedica, Inc., et al., No. 14-420, C.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Feb. 20 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari by a health insurer that argued that the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals did not apply the proper actual or imminent harm standing in determining class members’ standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution related to the exposure of their personally identifiable information (PII) in a 2014 data breach (CareFirst Inc., et al. v. Chantal Attias, et al., No. 17-641, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 1356).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 20 denied a petition for writ of certiorari that was filed by corporations that were intervenors on the side of the Federal Communications Commission in proceedings below and that challenged a decision by a split District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel that held that the FCC’s 2006 Solicited Fax Rule was unlawful to the extent that it required opt-out notices on solicited faxes and vacated an FCC order filed in response to a request for a declaratory ruling filed by a generic drug company that was the defendant in a $150 million class complaint (Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, et al. v. Anda, Inc., et al., No. 17-351, U.S. Sup.).
ATLANTA — In a Feb. 16 brief to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a group of financial institutions (FIs) that achieved a successful settlement of their claims related to the 2014 Home Depot Inc. data breach oppose the home improvement chain’s appeal of a subsequent $15.3 million attorney fees award, calling the amount reasonably calculated and in line with the efforts undertaken by class counsel (Northeastern Engineers Federal, et al. v. Home Depot Inc., et al., No. 17-14741, 11th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 20 denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Foot Locker Inc. asking the high court to decide whether a class of pension plan participants could be certified in a case alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when Foot Locker failed to disclose a temporary freezing of benefits after the Foot Locker Retirement Plan was transitioned to a cash-balance plan (Foot Locker, Inc., et al. v. Geoffrey Osberg, et al., No. 17-690, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 20 issued a per curiam decision in an appeal over retiree’s health care benefits and reversed a ruling by a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel majority for the retirees, referencing a dissenting opinion that called the decision “Yard-Man [UAW v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983)] re-born, re-built, and re-purposed for new adventures” (CNH Industrial N.V., et al. v. Jack Reese, et al., No. 17-515, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK — A life insurer and a private investment firm, which acquired the insurer, unlawfully increased the cost of premiums to recoup costs associated with the acquisition, among other reasons, plaintiffs allege in a Feb. 13 class action filed in a New York federal court (Derek Fan, et al. v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-01288, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Feb. 13 granted a motion for class certification in a lawsuit alleging that New York University (NYU) breached its duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in its administration and management of its retirement plan (Dr. Alan Sacerdote, et al. v. New York University, et al., No. 16-6284, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23540).
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 13 denied a retirement plan’s administrative and investment committees’ petition for permission to appeal the grant of class certification in a breach of fiduciary duty case in which the investors claim that the defendants selected company-affiliated mutual funds as plan investments rather than other better-performing mutual funds, finding that immediate appeal is unwarranted (Marya J. Leber v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., No. 07-9329, 2nd Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Two shareholders have the largest financial interest in a securities class action lawsuit against a developer of 4G semiconductor solutions for wireless broadband applications and two of the company’s senior officers and have met federal requirements to serve as lead plaintiffs, a federal judge in New York ruled Feb. 6 in appointing the shareholders lead plaintiffs and approving their choice of counsel as co-lead counsel (In re Sequans Communications S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 17-4665, E.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20665).
LOS ANGELES — Shareholders have pleaded the required falsity and scienter in claiming that a microturbine technology solutions provider and two of its senior officers concealed significant backlog issues with revenue it had received from its Russian distributor in violation of federal securities laws, a federal judge in California ruled Feb. 9 in denying a motion to dismiss (In re Capstone Turbine Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 15-8914, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22995).
CHICAGO — Two dock and deck resurfacing products made by Sherwin-Williams Co. and its subsidiaries are allegedly defective because they prematurely peel, bubble and crack, allowing the elements to penetrate the surface, a woman says in a nationwide class action suit filed Feb. 13 in Illinois federal court (Regan Sluder, et al. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., et al., No. 18-1121, N.D. Ill.).
HOUSTON — Parties in a securities class action lawsuit against an appliance retailer and others recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to determine whether a federal district court properly considered price impact and whether the correct damages methodology was applied in considering the length of the class period (Laborers Pension Trust Fund — Detroit and Vicinity, et al. v. Conn’s Inc., et al., No. 17-20525, 5th Cir.).
Recent class action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts across the country include complaints alleging privacy violations, improper medical care for prisoners and violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
DENVER — A Colorado federal judge on Feb. 2 certified five of six classes and all 13 subclasses proposed by au pairs who are suing their employers alleging suppression of wages (Johana Paola Beltran, et al. v. InterExchange, Inc., et al., No. 14-3074, D. Colo., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23764).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Feb. 8 denied Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.’s motion to dismiss a class complaint accusing the retailer of creating false sale prices by using fictitious “marked” prices on its products (Christina Chase, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., No. 17-881, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21165).
SAN FRANCISCO — A settlement by Ford Motor Co. that ended a class complaint accusing the automaker of fraudulently concealing and denying the existence of a transmission defect benefits only Ford, class counsel and the representative plaintiffs, objectors argue in an appellant brief filed Feb. 2 in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, challenging a district court’s approval of the settlement (Omar Vargas, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Nos. 17-56745 and 17-56746, 9th Cir.).