Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Michael Salazar filed a class action lawsuit against Paramount Global, alleging a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). Salazar claimed that he subscribed to a 247Sports e-newsletter and watched videos on 247Sports.com while logged into his Facebook account. He alleged that Paramount had installed Facebook’s tracking Pixel on 247Sports.com, which enabled Paramount to track and disclose his video viewing history to Facebook without his consent.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed Salazar’s complaint. The court found that Salazar had standing because the alleged disclosure of his video viewing history to Facebook constituted a concrete injury. However, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the VPPA, concluding that Salazar was not a “consumer” under the Act. The court reasoned that Salazar’s subscription to the 247Sports e-newsletter did not qualify him as a “consumer” because the newsletter was not “audio visual materials.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit agreed that Salazar had standing but held that he did not plausibly allege that he was a “consumer” under the VPPA. The court interpreted the term “goods or services” in the context of the VPPA to mean audio-visual materials, and since Salazar’s newsletter subscription did not involve audio-visual materials, he was not a “consumer” under the Act. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, as Salazar had not filed a formal motion to amend his complaint. View "Salazar v. Paramount Global" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case are four Oregon residents who filed a putative class action against Tillamook County Creamery Association (Tillamook) under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). They allege that Tillamook falsely represented the nature and origin of its dairy products, claiming they were sourced from small, family-owned farms in Tillamook County, while most of the milk actually came from a large factory farm in eastern Oregon. Plaintiffs argue that these misrepresentations led consumers to suffer economic harm by purchasing products they otherwise would not have bought or by paying inflated prices.The Multnomah County Circuit Court partially granted Tillamook’s motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiffs must plead that Tillamook’s false representations were observed and relied upon by anyone seeking recovery. The court dismissed the claims based on a price-inflation theory and a prohibited-transaction theory, reasoning that the class must be limited to consumers who purchased Tillamook products in reliance on the marketing representations.The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that plaintiffs’ UTPA claim required them to plead reliance on Tillamook’s representations. The court rejected the price-inflation theory, likening it to the fraud-on-the-market theory used in securities fraud cases, and found it inapplicable to consumer goods. The court also determined that the prohibited-transaction theory required proof of reliance, as the claimed loss was the purchase price resulting from misrepresentations.The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that plaintiffs’ premium-price theory and prohibited-transaction theory do not require pleading reliance. The court explained that the premium-price theory alleges that Tillamook’s deceptive marketing inflated the market value of its products, causing all purchasers to pay higher prices, regardless of individual reliance. Similarly, the prohibited-transaction theory claims that plaintiffs suffered loss by purchasing misbranded or falsely advertised products, which does not depend on consumers’ awareness of the misrepresentations. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Assn." on Justia Law

A certified class of Ohio landowners alleged that a Colorado-based mining company, Antero Resources Corporation, underpaid them $10 million in natural gas royalties. The landowners claimed that Antero improperly deducted costs for processing and fractionation from their royalties. Antero counterclaimed, seeking authority to deduct additional costs related to gathering, dehydrating, compressing, and transporting the unrefined natural gas. The district court certified the class, denied Antero's motion for summary judgment, granted the landowners' motion, and entered a final judgment after the parties stipulated damages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in favor of the landowners, finding that Antero improperly deducted processing and fractionation costs from the royalties. The court determined that these costs were necessary to transform the gas into marketable form and thus could not be deducted under the lease agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Antero could not deduct the costs of processing and fractionation from the landowners' royalties. The court found that the lease agreement's Market Enhancement Clause allowed deductions only for costs that enhanced the value of already marketable products, not for costs required to make the products marketable. The court concluded that the gas products first became marketable after processing and fractionation, and thus, these costs were not deductible. The court also noted that the Fourth Circuit had reached a similar conclusion in a related case involving the same defendant and lease terms. View "The Grissoms, LLC v. Antero Resources Corp." on Justia Law

Lynwood Pickens worked for Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions from 2018 to 2019, inspecting pipes at a natural-gas export terminal in Texas. He was paid $100 per hour but was guaranteed a weekly salary of $800, equivalent to eight hours of work. For any hours worked beyond the initial eight, he received additional hourly compensation. Pickens regularly worked over 50 hours per week but did not receive overtime pay, as Hamilton-Ryker classified him as a salaried employee exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).Pickens sued Hamilton-Ryker in 2020, claiming he was a non-exempt hourly worker entitled to overtime pay. Fourteen coworkers joined the lawsuit. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to Hamilton-Ryker, classifying Pickens as a salaried employee under the FLSA and dismissing the claims of his coworkers for not being "similarly situated."The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Pickens was not paid on a salary basis as defined by the FLSA regulations. The court emphasized that a true salary must cover a regular workweek, not just a portion of it. Since Pickens' guaranteed pay only covered eight hours, not his usual 52-hour workweek, he did not meet the salary basis test. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, leaving the determination of the collective action status and the claims of Pickens' coworkers to the district court. View "Pickens v. Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions" on Justia Law

In this case, plaintiffs in a class action alleged that several corporations in the broiler chicken market violated antitrust laws by engaging in bid rigging and reducing the supply of broiler chickens. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions led to anomalous dips in sales, which they attributed to collusion on price and output. The class action was divided into two tracks: Track 1, which omitted bid-rigging allegations for faster discovery and trial, and Track 2, which included bid-rigging theories and state law claims by indirect purchasers.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois allowed the class to place claims against Simmons Foods, Inc. and Simmons Prepared Foods, Inc. on Track 1. Simmons settled for $8 million, but several class members, including the Boston Market group, objected to the settlement. They argued that the settlement was inadequate and that they should not be included in the class because they had filed their own antitrust suits. However, they missed the deadline to opt out of the class, and the district court approved the settlement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the settlement's release language was broad enough to cover bid-rigging claims and that the $8 million settlement was reasonable. The court noted that the Boston Market group did not provide evidence that the settlement amount was unreasonably low. Additionally, the court observed that the class had lost a related trial and that criminal antitrust prosecutions against some firms had ended in mistrials or acquittals, indicating uncertainty about the plaintiffs' prospects. The court affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement. View "Boston Market Corporation v Mountainaire Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

Paul Osheske, a Facebook user, purchased a movie ticket on Landmark Theatres' website. Landmark Theatres, operated by Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., shared the name of the film, the location of the showing, and Osheske’s unique Facebook identification number with Facebook without his consent. Osheske filed a class action lawsuit against Landmark, alleging that this disclosure violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Osheske’s complaint, concluding that Landmark Theatres did not qualify as a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA. The court reasoned that the activities of selling tickets and providing an in-theater movie experience did not fall under the VPPA’s definition of “rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the VPPA does not apply to businesses providing a classic in-theater moviegoing experience. The court determined that the statutory text and historical context of the VPPA indicate that the Act was intended to cover the rental, sale, or delivery of video products, not the provision of shared access to film screenings in a theater. Consequently, Landmark Theatres' conduct did not make it a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA. The court also noted that the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend was proper, as the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. View "OSHESKE V. SILVER CINEMAS ACQUISITION COMPANY" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Glacier County taxpayers, alleged that the County and its Commissioners unlawfully made expenditures or disbursements of public funds or incurred obligations in excess of total appropriations, violating Montana law. The case originated from a 2015 lawsuit by Plaintiff Elaine Mitchell, who claimed the County and State failed to comply with the Single Audit Act and the Local Government Budget Act. An independent audit revealed deficit balances in many county funds, prompting the lawsuit. The plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including declarations of non-compliance with accounting standards and laws ensuring government financial accountability.The Ninth Judicial District Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the issue of the County's improper liquidation of a tax protest fund. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to certify Count II as a class action, which the District Court granted, defining the class as property taxpayers of Glacier County who paid taxes from 2012 to 2020. The County appealed the class certification order and the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of standing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decisions. The Court held that Plaintiffs had standing, as they alleged concrete economic injuries from the County's actions, such as increased tax obligations and loss of county services. The Court also found that the class met the prerequisites for certification under M. R. Civ. P. 23(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. The Court ruled that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual questions, making a class action the superior method for adjudicating the controversy. The class certification was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Gottlob v. DesRosier" on Justia Law

Francisco Rosario filed a class action lawsuit against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (Mr. Cooper) and The Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), alleging that they collected illegal and unlicensed third-party loan servicing fees on his mortgage. Rosario claimed that these fees were prohibited by the mortgage contract and Rhode Island law. He sought to represent all similarly situated individuals who were charged these fees.The Superior Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The court found that Rosario's claims were based on a statute that did not provide a private right of action for borrowers to recoup fees collected by unlicensed loan servicers. Rosario appealed the decision, arguing that the defendants breached the mortgage contract by charging fees in violation of Rhode Island law and that the statute should be interpreted broadly to include loan servicing activities.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the statute in question, G.L. 1956 § 19-14.11-1, did not provide a private right of action for borrowers to recover fees collected by unlicensed loan servicers. The court also found that the statute's exception for unlicensed transactions involving lending or loan brokering did not apply to loan servicing activities. Therefore, the court concluded that Rosario's breach of contract claim could not be sustained based on the alleged statutory violations. The order of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Rosario v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

Three Coast Guard servicemembers, Eric Jackson, Alaric Stone, and Michael Marcenelle, objected to a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security. Their requests for religious accommodations were denied, and they faced reprimands for refusing the vaccination. They filed a class action lawsuit against the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Assistant Commandant for Human Resources, alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case as moot after the Department of Defense rescinded its vaccination mandate, and the Coast Guard followed suit. The Plaintiffs' motion for relief from final judgment was also denied, leading to their appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal de novo. The appellate court found that the case was not moot because the Coast Guard had not issued policies protecting unvaccinated servicemembers from discrimination, unlike the Navy, which had implemented such protections. The court noted that the Plaintiffs could still face adverse actions based on their vaccination status and that a court order could provide effective relief. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Noem" on Justia Law

Tracy Hall filed a class action lawsuit against Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. and Walgreen Co., alleging that the company deceptively marketed a cough medicine containing dextromethorphan hydrobromide as "nondrowsy," despite drowsiness being a known side effect. The FDA regulates over-the-counter medicines, including antitussives, but does not require a drowsiness warning for the specific drug in question. Hall claimed that the labeling violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the case and denied Walgreens' motion to dismiss. Walgreens argued that the labeling fell within the CPA's statutory safe harbor, which exempts actions permitted by regulatory bodies. The federal court then certified the question to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, asking whether the labeling decision fell within the statutory safe harbor under RCW 19.86.170.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington concluded that the statutory safe harbor applies only to actions expressly permitted by a regulatory body. Since the FDA had not specifically permitted labeling the cough medicine as "nondrowsy," the court held that the activity did not fall within the statutory safe harbor. The court answered the certified question in the negative, indicating that the labeling did not qualify for the exemption under the CPA. View "Hall v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law