Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Class Actions

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The district court abused its discretion in certifying classes in this suit by plaintiffs who had accepted defendants' agreements for lump sum payments in return for the plaintiffs' rights to receive payments over time under structured settlements from prior litigation.  In every state, defendants' agreements had to be approved by a state court, some with more, some with less stringent… Read More

Plaintiff's counsel's voluntary narrowing of the class definition in a pending class action did not clearly exclude from the class color-blind employees like plaintiff.  So American Pipe tolling did not end for plaintiff upon that narrowing but only later when the 8th Circuit reversed the class certification order. Read More

Affirming denial of class certification in this case charging Folsom with a public and private nuisance of furnishing its customers with too acidic, chlorinated water that corroded copper pipes, the court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that individual questions as to liability predominated.  Folsom's own expert studies showed only that its water "could"… Read More

The district court abused its discretion in denying class certification of a claim that defendant violated California labor laws by requiring employees to remain on premises during rest breaks.  The evidence showed that defendant enforced that policy consistently across all its employees, making the claim suitable for class certification.  However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying… Read More

For the second time, the Ninth Circuit reverses approval of a class action settlement in this case which challenged Tinder's charging those over 30 more than younger subscribers for its dating services.  The Ninth Circuit finds that the named plaintiff was not an adquate representative of the class because her interest conflicted with that of a large number of class… Read More

After Habelt filed a class action for securities fraud against iRhythm, Miss. Public Retirement System was appointed the class representative pursuant to the PSLRA.  The Retirement System's amended complaint was dismissed without leave to amend.  The Retirement System did not appeal from the dismissal.  The mere fact that Habelt remained a name in the case caption didn't confer standing on… Read More

The trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer to the class action allegations of the complaint in this case which sought actual and punitive damages for the defendants' misuse of the Ellis Act to evict tenants from rent-controlled units and then to list units in the same building on AirBnB for tenancies of up to three years.  The decision holds… Read More

The Court of Appeals may raise sua sponte a question as to whether CAFA jurisdiction exists in a removed action even though neither the plaintiff nor the district court challenged the defendant's removal of the action or questioned the existence of CAFA jurisdiction.  Here, neither the removal notice nor an attached declaration established that CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy… Read More

This split decision holds that under Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1708, an employer waived the right to compel arbitration against class member employees who signed a 2002 arbitration agreement even though they became parties to the lawsuit only late in the case when a class was certified.  Though the named plaintiff had not signed the arbitration agreement,… Read More

The district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying two California and one national classes in a suit by detained immigrants against the private company that ran the detention centers.  The defendant's written corporate policies required inmates to work, cleaning bathrooms and other public areas under threat of discipline, and the defendant had a policy of misclassifying inmates as… Read More

This decision holds that there is a constitutional limit on aggregate statutory damage awards even if the statutory damage per violation passes constitutional muster.  An aggregate damage award may exceed due process limits in extreme situations—that is, when they are “wholly disproportioned” and “obviously unreasonable” in relation to the goals of the statute and the conduct the statute prohibits.  Constitutional… Read More

The settlement released claims of all class members who had bought iPhones on which Apple software throttled performance to avoid overtaxing the battery, but the settlement fund was payable only to those class members who submitted an attestation that they had experienced the slowing of the iPhone's functions as a result of the throttling.  This decision holds that the settlement… Read More

Though it did most other things right, the district court erred in expressly employing the wrong standard to decide whether the class action settlement in this case was fair, just, and equitable.  In a pre-certification settlement, like this one, the district court may not presume the settlement is reasonable but must instead exercise heightened scrutiny.  Application of the wrong standard… Read More

The district court erred in certifying a plaintiff class in this case challenging defendant's classification of its property preservation workers as independent contractors and asserting claims for overtime pay and expense reimbursement.  Plaintiffs could not prove fact of damage--not just amount of damage--by common evidence since some class members had not worked overtime or incurred reimbursable business expenses.  The district… Read More

Plaintiff was a nurse, employed by a staffing company, on temporary assignment to a hospital run by defendant.  Plaintiff brought separate class actions against the staffing company and the hospital for wage and hour violations.  This decision holds that the settlement and dismissal of plaintiff's suit against the staffing company did not end or preclude her suit against the defendant. … Read More

The FAA does not preempt California law insofar as it invalidates a waiver of an employee's right to bring PAGA claims arising out of Labor Code violations that affected the plaintiff employee.  However, the FAA does preempt California law (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 and progeny) insofar as it precludes waiver of the employee's… Read More

The district court abused its discretion in denying class certification on the ground of lack of numerosity in this Title IX case charging unequal sports programs for females in Hawaii state schools.  The absolute size of the class--300 currently enrolled students--satisfied numerosity, as the plaintiff's claims challenged the state's overall treatment of female athletes, necessarily affecting all 300 female athletes. … Read More

1 2 3 7