Class Actions Brief Blog

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:

Billioni v. Bryant, No. 0:14-cv-03060 (D.S.C. July 31, 2014) (alleging collective action for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and individual claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the South Carolina whistleblower statute and for retaliation and wrongful termination from the York County Detention Center).

Home Loan Center v. Dijkstra, No. 14-386 (4th Cir. July 31, 2014) (appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia’s order on class damages, which awarded class members—West Virginia consumers who obtained mortgage loans through LendingTree—with more than $4,000 in statutory damages for Defendants’ unauthorized practice of law at real estate closings and excessive notary fees).

Sadler v. Pella Corp., No. 2:14-cv-03051 (D.S.C. July 30, 2014) (case transferred to MDL from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).

Friday v. The Remi Group, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-00405 (W.D.N.C. July 24, 2014) (alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and N.C. Wage and Hour Act for failure to pay wages for all hours worked and overtime). The purported class is defined as “all customer service agents of defendants from May 2011 through present who were not paid for all hours worked in at least one workweek which exceeded forty (40) hours of work.” You can read more about such fail-safe classes in our previous post.

Sams v. Entrust Arizona, LLC, No. 14-1722 (4th Cir. July 18, 2014) (appeal from order and memorandum granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim). Sams brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of herself and three purported classes of similarly situated persons, alleging that defendants, self-directed individual retirement account custodians and administrators, are liable for account losses associated with her investment in a Ponzi scheme. The alleged Ponzi scheme manager was not named as a defendant, and Sams failed to allege that defendants knew about the Ponzi scheme.

Brown v. GNC Corp., No. 14-1724 (4th Cir. July 18, 2014) (appeal from grant of motion to dismiss MDL consolidated complaint alleging violations of various state consumer protection, deceptive practices, and warranty statutes related to GNC and Rite Aid joint supplements containing glucosamine and chondroitin). The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Judge Motz) held that the existence of a “battle of the experts” regarding the supplements’ effectiveness was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that the Defendants’ advertisements violated consumer protection laws.

Baker v. Aramark Corp., No. 1:14-cv-02857 (D.S.C. July 16, 2014) (removal from Aiken County of action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act for unpaid overtime and unpaid wages for “off the clock hours”). The Complaint, which is nearly identical to the complaints in Pinckney v. 7-Eleven Inc., No. 3:14-cv-02337 (D.S.C. June 13, 2014), Hammond v. The Methodist Oaks, No. 5:14-cv-02152 (June 4, 2014) and Void v. Orangeburg County Disabilities and Special Needs Board, No. 5:14-cv-02157 (June 4, 2014), was originally filed June 3, 2014.

Manheim v. SME Inc., USA, No. 2:14-cv-02856 (D.S.C. July 16, 2014) (nationwide class action alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for sending junk faxes). Plaintiff filed a motion and brief in support of class certification contemporaneously with the complaint, and, the next day, filed a motion to stay the motion for class certification and requested time to conduct class-related discovery.

Clark v. PokerTek, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00380 (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2014) (federal securities class action to enjoin the proposed acquisition of PokerTek by Multimedia Games, Inc., alleging inadequate sales price and proxy deficiencies).

Two recent filings from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina are related to federal securities class actions filed against PowerSecure International. As previously reported, these related cases allege fraud after the defendant company’s share price dropped.

• Higgins v. PowerSecure Int’l, Inc., 5:14-cv-00388 (E.D.N.C. July 9, 2014) (case transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, No. 3:14-cv-00271). The Higgins complaint was originally filed May 27, 2014.
• Taylor v. PowerSecure Int’l, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-00385 (E.D.N.C. July 8, 2014) (complaint filed)

These cases join Ash v. PowerSecure Int’l, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-000092 (E.D.N.C. May 22, 2014).

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Dreher, No. 14-325 (4th Cir. July 7, 2014) (petition for interlocutory appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s order granting class certification of nationwide 88,000-member class of individuals who requested a credit report from Experian that included an account with Advanta Bank or Advanta Credit Cards after Advanta entered FDIC receivership in August 2010). Plaintiff, a victim of identity theft, alleges in his Complaint multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act related to the credit reporting agency’s failure to provide notice, accurate information, and prompt investigation of the fraudulent accounts opened through Advanta. For more information, see this post.

Kingery v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 14-1661 (4th Cir. July 7, 2014) (appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia’s class decertification and grant of summary judgment in favor of Quicken Loans). Plaintiff alleged that Quicken Loans used her credit score but failed to provide her with timely notice in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. At summary judgment, the trial court determined that Plaintiff was not a member of the certified nationwide class consisting of all individuals with credit scores obtained and used by Quicken Loans because there was no admissible evidence that Plaintiff’s score was used by Quicken Loans. Because Plaintiff was not a member of the class, the class was decertified and her individual claims failed as a matter of law.

Alshehabi v. Hymans Seafood Co., No. 2:14-cv-02724 (D.S.C. July 3, 2014) (alleging minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act based, in part, on unlawful tip-sharing arrangement at restaurant).

Corbett et al. v. General Motors, LLC, No. 7:14-cv-00139 (E.D.N.C. July 1, 2014) (class action filed on behalf of North Carolinians alleging “deadly design defect in vehicle switches in millions of GM vehicles”).