DALLAS — A putative class complaint accusing a former security company employee of privacy violations when he allegedly accessed security cameras dozen of times after they were installed belongs in a Texas state court, a federal judge in Texas held June 4, opining that the Class Action Fairness Act’s (CAFA) home-state exception applies.
DAYTON, Ohio — A federal judge in Ohio on June 4 granted preliminary approval of a $3.25 million settlement reached by Papa John’s franchisees and delivery drivers who brought class and collective claims seeking reimbursement for actual expenses.
BOSTON — Whole Foods workers who filed a putative class complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after being disciplined when they wore Black Lives Matter (BLM) masks and other attire failed to show disparate treatment or impact and didn’t even identify their races, “which alone justifies dismissal,” Whole Foods Market Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. argue in their appellee brief filed June 9 in the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
SAN FRANISCO — A class complaint filed June 2 in a California federal court alleges that Dell Technologies Inc. and 10 unnamed Does violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other state laws by intentionally misleading consumers into believing that its “flagship gaming laptop” that was nearing the end of its life cycle was fully upgradeable when it actually was not.
PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon on June 8 denied certification of a nationwide class but granted certification of an Oregon subclass of those who suffered actual damages in a lawsuit concerning the fees associated with debit cards given to prisoners upon release loaded with the value of the cash that was confiscated from them at the time they were booked.
BOSTON — Putative class claims accusing a single-serve coffee pod maker of falsely advertising the pods as recyclable brought under Massachusetts state law may be brought only on behalf of a group of consumers who saw the advertisements and purchased the pods in Massachusetts, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled June 11, denying a motion to dismiss but granting a motion to strike class claims as to a proposed nationwide class.
SAN FRANCISCO — A trial court erred when it issued an order denying a motion to compel arbitration prior to a jury trial to determine whether the plaintiff was bound by an arbitration agreement as such a determination goes against the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 11.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Residents of an assisted living facility who filed a putative class complaint alleging that the facility’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) filed a notice of appeal on June 10, approximately one month after a New Jersey federal judge dismissed the complaint for failure to sufficiently plead that they have been discriminated against because of their disabilities and “to articulate a nexus between the disabilities and the reasonable accommodations requested.”
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on June 9 dismissed with prejudice based on the two-year statute of limitations putative class claims by two Black franchisees that they were steered by a fast food franchisor to Black communities where white franchisees refused to operate restaurants due to higher overhead costs and employee turnover and denied as moot a motion to strike class allegations.
PASADENA, Calif. — A divided Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 9 ruled that a trial court abused its discretion by improperly evaluating e factors set out in Forman v. Davis when it struck a former employee’s class definition in his wage-and-hour suit without leave to amend a second time and wrongly found that the worker did not state claims for wage violations under California law; as a result of those findings, the panel further determined that the dismissal of the unfair competition law (UCL) and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims was no longer valid.
NEW YORK — A consumer who filed a class complaint against Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust Ltd. alleging that it sent her and a proposed class unwanted text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was not bound by an arbitration agreement on Subway’s website due to the company’s failure to provide users with a reasonable conspicuous notice that they were agreeing to such terms, a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled June 8.
SAN DIEGO — A California federal magistrate judge on June 7 ordered that putative class action plaintiffs, an intervenor and a food products manufacturer facing California unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims for allegedly misrepresenting fruit-flavored snack products as containing no artificial flavors appear at a case management conference, following a judge’s June 4 denial of preliminary approval to a proposed settlement, which the judge said “provides no meaningful benefit to the class.”
RICHMOND, Va. — Class representatives in a securities class action lawsuit against a window and door manufacturer asked a federal judge in Virginia on June 4 to preliminarily approve a $40 million settlement agreement reached by the parties, arguing that the proposed settlement meets all statutory requirements for approval.
MIAMI — A trial court’s approval of a settlement agreement between Equifax Inc. and a consolidated group of consumers who sued the credit-reporting service over its massive 2017 data breach was affirmed June 3 by an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which concluded that the agreement’s terms were fair and found no abuse of discretion in the approval procedures.
FRESNO, Calif. — A former Five Guys employee’s third motion seeking preliminary approval of a proposed $1.2 million class action settlement of allegations that the franchise chain and a franchisee violated federal and California consumer reporting laws, California wage-and-hour laws and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) does not provide sufficient information to show that it “is likely to be approved as ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate’ upon certification of the class,” a California federal judge ruled in an order filed June 1 that denied the motion without prejudice.
FRESNO, Calif. — A California appeals court on May 26 affirmed a coordinating court’s denial of additional attorney fees and costs totaling as much as $2.25 million for a class in the Antelope Valley groundwater adjudication, saying the applicants had not met any of the exceptions listed in a 2010 settlement of their water right claims and were not entitled to additional fees and costs under California’s private attorney general doctrine.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Residents of an assisted living facility who allege that its response to the COVID-19 pandemic violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) did not sufficiently plead that they have been discriminated against because of their disabilities and failed “to articulate a nexus between the disabilities and the reasonable accommodations requested,” a New Jersey federal judge ruled May 12, granting the facility’s motion to dismiss the putative class suit.
STATESVILLE, N.C. — As participants in Lowe’s Cos. Inc. 401(k) plan prepare to head to trial with Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting Inc. on class allegations that Aon Hewitt breached its duties of loyalty and prudence in a class suit challenging the move of more than $1 billion in plan assets to a growth fund, Lowe's Cos. Inc. and the Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies Inc. (collectively, the Lowe’s defendants) have agreed to a $12.5 million settlement with the class, the parties informed a North Carolina federal judge in numerous May 28 filings.
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A putative class complaint accusing a credit reporting company of violating Florida law by monitoring and recording website visitors’ actions survives a dismissal motion as Florida courts have interpreted “interception” under state law to mean only recording by one party without the other party’s consent unlike the federal Wiretap Act, which requires the involvement of a third party to constitute interception, a judge in a federal court in California ruled May 25.
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on May 28 approved the allocation of a $34.5 million payment for attorney fees and costs to the economic loss class counsel in a multidistrict litigation arising out of ignition switch defects and the recall of millions of General Motors LLC (new GM) vehicles.