Class Actions

Following Roes, 1-2  v. SFBSC Management, LLC (9th Cir. 2019) 944 F.3d 1035, this decision holds that when a class action settles before class certification, the district court may not apply a presumption of fairness to the settlement based on arms-length negotiation between experienced counsel.  Instead, the court mus employ extra caution and more rigorous scrutiny in evaluating a pre-certification… Read More

Distinguishing Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1702, Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 983 F.3d 1115, and Sperring v. LLR, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 995 F.3d 680, which involved voluntary dismissals in order to appeal from class certification orders or orders compelling arbitration, as to which Rule 23(f) or 9 USC 16 prescribe different appellate… Read More

A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a class action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act unless the complaint names 100 class members.  (Floyd v. American Honda Motor Co. (9th Cir, 2020) 966 F.3d 1027.)  Similarly, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an MMWA case unless no claim in the amount in controversy on each claim exceeds $25… Read More

Statistical evidence is admissible to establish predominance under FRCivP 23(b)(3) if that evidence would be admissible in an individual action on the same claim, the statistical evidence is linked to the plaintiffs' theory of liability and the use of averaging assumptions does not conceal the variations that otherwise would defeat class certification.  Here, plaintiffs' statistical evidence satisfied those three tests. … Read More

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this case involving the valuation of totaled cars.  While defendants might have uniformly violated a Washington state insurance regulation requiring itemization of deductions in calculating the car's value, there was no private right of action under the regulation.  Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and unfair trade… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this wage and hour case.  Insofar as plaintiff claimed that the employer's rounding of hours worked was illegal, the trial court properly found that noncommon issues predominated because it had no single rounding policy but left matters up to managers at its different locations.  Plaintiff's theory that… Read More

A district court may approve a class action settlement that provides monetary relief only in the form of cy pres payments to non-parties, so long as distribution to class members is not possible and the recipients of the cy pres payments are appropriately chosen in light of the nature of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, and… Read More

A volunteer working for a charitable organization without the expectation of payment for his work is not an employee for purposes of state wage and hour laws.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification of an alleged class of all workers for the defendant charity who did not receive pay for their work.  There was a… Read More

As in Turrietta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 815, the plaintiff in a parallel wage and hour case appealed from an order approving a class action and PAGA claim settlement.  Contrary Turrietta, but without citing it, this decision holds that even though he opted out of the class, the objector had standing to appeal from the final… Read More

The district court erred in holding that this class settlement was not a coupon settlement within CAFA's meaning (see 28 USC 1712.  The settlement gave class members $36 or higher vouchers for defendant's services or products.  The relatively low amount of the smallest vouchers and limited (251) number of products or services they could purchase, showed these were coupons even… Read More

Following Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 666 F.3d 581, this decision holds that the district court erred in certifying a nationwide class of end purchasers of computer equipment containing Qualcomm chips under Rule 23(b)(3).  To determine the law applicable to the class' antitrust claims, the court must apply California's governmental interest analysis.  Here, the only… Read More

The release in this class action settlement was too broad.  Only claims that were or could have been alleged in the complaint--that arise from the facts the complaint alleges--may be released in a class action settlement.  Here, the release went beyond that boundary to any claim that related in any way to any of the facts or theories that the… Read More

Following O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (9th Cir. 2018) 904 F.3d 1087, this decision affirms the district court's denial of class certification in a wage and hour case.  Plaintiff and one other worker did not, but all the other putative class members did, sign an arbitration agreement with defendant containing a class action waiver.  As a result, plaintiff was not… Read More

Class action settlements reached before class certification face a high hurdle to approval.  Here, the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement of claims that Tinder violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code 52) by charging those over 29 more to use its premium services than younger users.  The district court undervalued the worth of the claims… Read More

Noting that it was not clear whether an order compelling arbitration and dismissing class claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement that contained a class action waiver, the court exercised its discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate, but denied the petition on the merits. Read More

On a discretionary appeal from a class certification order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review any issue bound up with the decision to certify the class.  Thus, in this case, on a 23(f) appeal from an order certifying two nationwide TCPA classes, the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to consider whether the… Read More

The district court correctly denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction before compelling arbitration of the plaintiff's wage-and-hour misclassification claims.  Plaintiff had sought an injunction requiring Uber to reclassify all its drivers as employees rather than independent contractors.  That injunction would have changed, not preserved, the status quo pending arbitration.  Also, there was no urgent need for an injunction before… Read More

The trial court correctly compelled arbitration of this Massachusetts Uber driver's wage and hour class action, based on alleged misclassification of Uber drivers as independent contractors.  For purposes of determining whether the plaintiff was a worker in interstate commerce, exempt from the FAA under 9 USC 2, the court properly considered the class of all Uber drivers nationwide, not just… Read More

Google settled part of a class action, paying some class members $65 million and agreeing to separately pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees as awarded by the court.  Plaintiffs' attorneys appealed from the district court's fee award, claiming the district court should have awarded them more based on the common fund theory of fee awards rather than the lower sum it calculated… Read More

Each class member must establish Article III standing in order to recover relief in a case in federal court.  Here, TransUnion included incorrect OFAC terrorist information in its credit files on 8,000 class members but issued credit reports to third parties with the incorrect OFAC information only as to 1,600 of the class members.  This decision holds that only the… Read More