Class Actions Brief Blog

Last year in this space, we reported on the continuing debate concerning the use of cy pres awards in class action settlements.  Since 2013, Chief Justice Roberts has provided cautionary comments about this practice.  See Marek v. Lane, 134 S. Ct. 8 (2013).  We also reported on the Ninth Circuit’s approval of a cy pres settlement in In Re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigat., 869 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2017), which awarded plaintiffs’ counsel $3.5 million and six nonprofits/educational institutions another $5.3 million, all while awarding class members the proverbial goose egg.

After a lively oral argument interrupted eight times by laughter, a unanimous Supreme Court reached a serious holding in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019): that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f)’s 14-day period for requesting permission to appeal class certification orders cannot be equitably tolled.

The class-action plaintiff in Lambert sued for an alleged violation of the California consumer protection law. Although the district court originally allowed the plaintiff to proceed on behalf of a class, the court later ordered the class decertified. The plaintiff ...

In a December order, Judge Eagles awarded $20.4 million in attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel in Krakauer v. Dish Network. The motion for fees was unchallenged by Dish Network, and all but a handful of the 18,000 class members approved of the amount.

The facts of Krakauer are familiar to longtime readers of Class Actions Brief. Plaintiffs sued Dish Network under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) for allowing their agent to repeatedly call plaintiffs despite their listing on the Do Not Call Registry. As we previously reported, after a trial in January 2017, a jury ...

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of November's filings:

Cavin v. Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP, No. 1:18-cv-00995 (M.D.N.C. November 30, 2018) (putative class action alleging defendant sent misleading and deceptive collection letters stating “we assume this to be a valid debt” in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)

Langley, et al. v. Smith Turf & Irrigation, LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-00619 (W.D.N.C. November 16, 2018) (putative collective action brought ...

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of October's filings:

Milroy, et al. v. Bell Partners Inc., et al. (E.D.N.C. October 30, 2018) (removal of state court complaint to federal court alleging defendant property management company hired law firms to conduct eviction proceedings for a flat fee, and their attempt to collect court costs and attorneys’ fees from apartment tenants before such costs and fees were awarded violates the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act, North Carolina Debt ...

Brumfield v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a putative collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act by home health licensed nurses and physical therapist assistants alleging defendants failed to pay them overtime for required work activities beyond the “in-home” visits, including travel time, time spent transporting samples to labs, and time spent delivering medical supplies to patients. Four additional people elected to “opt-in” to the case and join the collective action, including Andrew Tyler, who worked in South Carolina.

Defendant Kindred ...

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of September's filings:

Edwards, et al. v. CSX Corp., et al., No. 7:18-cv-169 (E.D.N.C. September 24, 2018) (purported class action brought by Lumberton residents alleging CSX Corporation negligently maintained an underpass on the railroad’s property which allowed water to pour through gaps in the city’s levees, causing catastrophic flooding and damage to their homes during Hurricane Florence)

Grimes v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. (GEICO), No. 1:18-cv-798 ...

We often report in our monthly digests on cases asserting claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage and hour laws. These cases generally involve claims that a company, often a restaurant or delivery service company, failed to pay overtime, used an improper “tip pool,” or treated workers as independent contractors, not employees. Resolving these cases can become complicated because they involve both a collective action and a class action.

Claims asserted under the FLSA are considered collective actions, not class actions. Collective actions ...

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of August's filings:

Wright v. Trak-1 Tech., Inc., No. 6:18-cv-02406 (D.S.C. August 30, 2018) (purported class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act alleging defendant performed criminal background checks but failed to take reasonable measures to ensure the accuracy of those reports, thereby reporting false and incomplete information about consumers)

Manigo v. Metro-Tech Sys., Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00479 (W.D.N.C. August 29, 2018) (purported ...

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of July's filings:

Nelson v. Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-02074 (D.S.C. July 27, 2018) (putative class action alleging defendant vehicle loan servicing agency emailed collection information to hundreds of customers at the same time, revealing confidential customer information in violation of state privacy laws)

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. v. Joshua Baker, No. 2:18-cv-02078 (D.S.C. July 27, 2018) (putative class action against ...