NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 19 denied a petition for permission to appeal class certification filed by Cornell University and others in a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit (Cornell University, et al. v. Casey Cunningham, et al., No. 19-324, 2nd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 24 declined to review an appeal of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals holding in which it applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd. to find that Toshiba Corp.’s American Depositary Shares (ADSs) were securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, et al., No. 18-486, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 21 per curiam majority opinion, the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a labor union sufficiently alleged class claims against The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and a contractor under the Privacy Act of 1974 related to a 2015 data breach, partly reversing a trial court’s dismissal of the consolidated lawsuit (In Re: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 17-5217 & 17-5232, D.C. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18609).
DENVER — A Colorado federal judge on June 19 granted preliminary approval to a settlement of class claims over a 2017 data breach experienced by against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., with the burrito chain agreeing to pay claims of affected customers without an aggregated cap (Todd Gordon, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01415, D. Colo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102304).
DURHAM, N.C. — A federal judge in North Carolina on June 4 granted preliminary approval of a $54.5 million class settlement to be paid by Duke University and Duke University Health System (collectively, Duke) to end claims that Duke and University of North Carolina (UNC) conspired to reduce or eliminate competition for skilled medical labor (Danielle Seaman, et al. v. Duke University, et al., No. 15-462, M.D. N.C.).
CHICAGO — A trial court’s ruling in a class and collective action over wage deductions and time rounding would remain untouched if it weren’t for a retroactive amendment made to Indiana wage-deduction law made after the trial court’s decision, a Seventh Circuit panel ruled May 29, partially vacating the judgment for the workers and remanding for further proceedings (Brian A. Weil, et al. v. Metal Technologies, Inc., Nos. 18-2556 and 18-2440, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15946).
PHILADELPHIA — Finding a lawsuit brought by homeowners to be untimely, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 19 upheld the dismissal of homeowners’ claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and unjust enrichment in their putative class action alleging a captive reinsurance scheme between banks and an affiliated reinsurer (Christopher Blake, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., No. 18-2368, 3rd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18370).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A company that provides warehouse labor services and Amazon.com Inc., in their petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court over the compensability of security screenings under Nevada law, have flipped their position and are objecting to an interpretation of the Portal-to-Portal Act by an appellate court that they advanced in 2014, employees argue in their June 7 brief in opposition (Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Jesse Busk, et al., No. 18-1154, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK — A federal court in New York should deny a motion to amend and certify an April order — which allowed a claim to proceed against Harvey Weinstein for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) — for interlocutory appeal, Weinstein’s accusers write in a June 17 response (Louisette Geiss, et al. v. The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, et al., No. 17-9554, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCICO — A franchiser seeks panel rehearing or rehearing en banc from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on its holding that the franchisor is liable for alleged wage-and-hour violations of its franchisees unless the franchisor can disprove each element of the “ABC test” adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court (Gerardo Vazquez, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., No. 17-16096, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A split District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 14 affirmed class certification in a lawsuit over the federal government’s practical ban on pre-viability abortions for unaccompanied alien minors (UAC) in federal custody and partially upheld a trial court’s preliminary injunction as to the blanket denial of access to abortions, but the majority vacated and remanded the portion of the preliminary injunction that barred disclosure of the abortion decisions to parents and others (J.D., et al. v. Alex Michael Azar, II, et al., No. 18-5093, D.C. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17900).
SAN FRANCISCO — One month after a California federal judge granted preliminary approval of a settlement of nuisance and trespass claims against the creator of Pokémon GO, the plaintiff property owners on June 13 moved for final approval of the settlement, asserting that it is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable” (In re Pokémon GO Nuisance Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-04300, N.D. Calif.).
CLEVELAND — Plaintiff lawyers in the opioid multidistrict litigation on June 14 filed a motion to have the court certify an admittedly novel “negotiation class” consisting of cities and counties that will have a stake in any settlements with drug manufacturers, drug distributors and chain pharmacies (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2804, No. 17-md-2804, N.D. Ohio, E. Div.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Finding that the record established that Facebook Inc. did not use its facial recognition technology in the photo-uploading incident at the heart of a putative class action, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 14 affirmed judgment in the social network’s favor on a man’s claim that it violated an Illinois biometric privacy statute (Frederick William Gullen v. Facebook Inc., No. 18-15785, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17969).
SAN FRANCISCO — Both named and unnamed plaintiffs in a drug-pricing class action allege the same injury from the same conduct, satisfying the typicality requirements for a class action, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held June 14 in reinstating the class and expert testimony (Christopher Corcoran, et al. v. CVS Health, et al., No. 17-16996, 9th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Reversing and remanding a trial court’s dismissal of a man’s class claims against Facebook Inc. under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 13 found that he sufficiently alleged that the social network sent automated, unwanted text messages via an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) (Noah Duguid v. Facebook Inc., No. 17-15320, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17675).
LANSING, Mich. — A 4-2 Michigan Supreme Court on May 30 held that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between a county and its employees did not promise lifetime health care benefits to retirees and that the provisions of the agreement limited the benefits to three years (Rita Kendzierski, et al. v. Macomb County, No. 156086, Mich. Sup., 2019 Mich. LEXIS 989).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on June 11 certified a class of participants in JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s 401(k) plan suing over allegedly excessive fees for certain options after narrowing the definition to exclude participants who invested only when there were reasonable fees or no fees at all (Terre Beach, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, et al., No. 17-563, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97946).
SEATTLE — In a putative class complaint filed June 11 in Washington federal court, Amazon.com Inc. was accused of violating eight states’ wiretap statutes by recording and storing the voices of minors without consent or notice via the “Alexa” digital assistant (C.O. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., No. 2:19-cv-00910, W.D. Wash.).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on June 10 granted a former technology company employee’s request to remand a class action lawsuit in which he asserts wage-related claims and a cause of action for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), holding that the damages sought did not meet the $5 million jurisdictional threshold for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (Roger Flores v. Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLC, No. 19-932, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97165).