Class Action - The Class Action Blog by Carr Maloney PC

Supreme Court to Determine Pleading Standard in Shareholder Class Actions

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Nvidia’s appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to revive a shareholder class action lawsuit against the company. The Supreme Court will consider the appropriate pleading standard for a claim of fraudulent statements or omissions under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).

Nvidia is an artificial intelligence chipmaker and Nvidia chips have become popular for cryptomining (the complicated process used to secure cryptocurrencies). The class action lawsuit alleged that Nvidia misled investors about what amount of their […]

By Matthew D. Berkowitz and Mac McCullough|2024-06-26T10:15:11-04:00June 26th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: #AIChipmaker, #CircuitCourt, #ClassActionLawsuit, #Cryptomining, #CryptoRevenue, #FraudulentStatements, #LegalAppeal, #LegalImplications, #LegalStandards, #Nvidia, #PleadingStandards, #PSLRA, #SecuritiesExchangeAct, #SecuritiesLaw, #SecuritiesLitigation, #ShareholderLawsuit, #SupremeCourt, SCOTUS|

Read the Full Article

Federal Courts Must Grant Requests for Stays Pending Arbitration

Last week, in Smith v. Spizzirri, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal court must grant a party’s request for a stay while arbitration is pending. In Spizzirri, a group of delivery drivers sued their current and former employers in Arizona state court. The plaintiffs alleged they were misclassified as independent contracts and were denied benefits. The defendants removed the case to federal court. The defendants also moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit.

Plaintiffs agreed their claims are arbitrable but argued the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only requires the court to stay, […]

By Stuart Davis|2024-05-21T09:20:05-04:00May 21st, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: Arbitration, Circuit Split, Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Federal Court, Judicial Rulings, Legal Decision, Legal Process, Litigation, Smith v. Spizzirri, Supreme Court|

Read the Full Article

The Real Estate Commission Settlement – What Does It Mean Other for Commission-Based Industries?

A Kansas City jury recently awarded a class of approximately 500,000 Missouri home sellers a verdict of $1.78 billion against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the four largest real estate broker franchises, finding the real estate entities conspired to require home sellers to pay an inflated brokerage commission in violation of antitrust laws. In Sitzer, et al., v. National Association of Realtors et al., Plaintiffs alleged that if a home seller did not agree to pay a set commission (usually 5-6%), his/her property would not be included on the “Multiple Listing Service” or MLS, […]

By Matthew D. Berkowitz and Jeffrey Brundage|2024-04-24T15:09:30-04:00April 24th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: antitrust, brokerage, collusion, commission, conspiracy, home sellers, industry changes, lawsuit, Litigation, medical device sales, MLS, NAR, pharmaceutical, real estate, travel industry|

Read the Full Article

SCOTUS Deepens Circuit Split on Predominance Standard

The United States Supreme Court declined Visa and Mastercard’s petition for certiorari on Monday, thereby deepening a split between the circuit courts regarding the predominance standard for class certification. The National ATM Council, Inc. (NAC) filed a class action against the credit card companies for blocking ATM operators from charging customers different ATM fees. The credit card companies opposed certification by arguing, in part, that the putative class contained uninjured plaintiffs. They further argued this mixture of injured and uninjured plaintiffs failed to satisfy the predominance standard.

A federal judge disagreed and certified the class. The D.C. […]

By Stuart Davis and Matthew D. Berkowitz|2024-04-22T12:36:09-04:00April 22nd, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: Supreme Court|

Read the Full Article

Supreme Court Holds that Pure Omissions Cannot Support a Private Cause of Action Under SEC Rule 10b-5(b)

After hearing arguments on January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion on Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al. v. Moab Partners, LP, et al, on April 12, 2024. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve “whether a failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 can support a private claim under . . . Rule 10b-5(b) in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.” The Court held that a manager’s pure omission cannot support an investor’s cause of action under Rule 10b-5(b). Instead, “the failure to disclose information required by Item 303 can […]

By Kelsey Williams and Matthew D. Berkowitz|2024-04-17T10:37:21-04:00April 17th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: Supreme Court|

Read the Full Article

Google Advertisement Privacy Case Gets Denied Its Certification Bid

On April 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the certification of a class action lawsuit from potentially tens of millions of Google account holders against Google. Plaintiffs alleged that Google sells its account holders’ personal information billions of times each day to hundreds of participant advertisers despite repeatedly promising not to do so. In denying the class certification, the District Court held that while consumers meet certain certification requirements such as numerosity, typicality, and adequacy, the current class definition is improperly fail-safe. A fail safe class is one […]

By Matthew D. Berkowitz and Nima Youchidje|2024-04-16T08:53:12-04:00April 16th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: california, Civil Procedure, google, privacy case, United States District Court|

Read the Full Article

Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Cannabis Dispensary Employee Class Action Lawsuit

The New Mexico federal court preliminarily approved a class action settlement for $525,000 in a wage claim asserted by a group of hourly employees from two cannabis dispensary chains, Medicine Man Technologies, Inc. (which does business in New Mexico as Schwazze) and R. Greenleaf Organics, Inc.

The “budtenders,” as the employees are classified, typically earn more than $30 per month in tips in addition to an hourly rate of $15.75. The lawsuit alleges that it is company-wide policy for cash tips to be pooled and distributed to employees at the end of each workday in proportion to […]

By Stephen Rutigliano and Tina Maiolo|2024-04-12T13:30:53-04:00April 12th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: cannabis dispensary, cannabis law, Class Action, class action settlement, lawsuit, new mexico|

Read the Full Article

American Bar Association Moves to Dismiss Class Action Complaint Amid Rising Tide of Data Breach Litigation

The number of data breaches in the United States has increased significantly in the past ten years. According to an IBM study, more than 4 out of 5 companies have experienced a data breach at least once. These data breaches have generated a corresponding rise in class action litigation against companies. The American Bar Association (“ABA”) is one of the most recent high-profile examples of an organization contending with such a suit.

Tiffany Troy and Eric John Mata, current ABA members, filed a class-action complaint against the ABA on April 21, 2023, for breach of implied contract […]

By Stuart Davis and Danny Bartle|2024-03-04T09:08:23-05:00March 4th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: #AmericanBarAssociation, #ClassAction, #ClassCertification, #Commonality, #ConsumerProtection, #CyberSecurityPractice, #DataBreaches, #DataLeak, #FederalRuleofCivilProcedure, #FinancialInformation, #ImpliedContract, #Typicality, Cybersecurity, Litigation, predominance|

Read the Full Article

Supreme Court Evaluates Private Cause of Action for Allegedly Lying by Omission

On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Case Number 22-1165, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al. v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al. Before the Court was whether a “failure to make a disclosure under Item 303 of the SEC regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10b of the Exchange Act, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.”

Between February 2016, and February 2018, Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) in various Management’s Discussion and Analysis allegedly “disclosed a few known trends that would affect their bottom line but omitted” a new […]

By Kelsey Williams|2024-02-05T15:06:30-05:00February 5th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: Case Number 22-1165, Class Action, Exchange Act, Investor Lawsuit, Investors’ Rights, Investors’ Rights Expansion., Item 303, L.P., Legal Implications, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), Material Fact, Misleading Statements, Moab Partners, Omissions, Private Cause of Action, Rule 10b-5, SEC Enforcement, SEC Regulation S-K, Supreme Court, Transparency|

Read the Full Article

United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to Decide Coinbase’s Arbitration Dispute

On November 3, 2023, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Coinbase Inc. v. Suski. The Supreme Court is expected to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision ruling that Coinbase’s dispute with its cryptocurrency users is to be resolved by the Court and not via arbitration.

Coinbase’s User Agreement provides that any dispute between one of the largest cryptocurrency exchange platforms and its users will be resolved through arbitration and not through the courts. A delegation clause in the User Agreement also stated that all issues surrounding the enforceability […]

By Matthew D. Berkowitz and Nima Youchidje|2023-11-07T11:42:37-05:00November 7th, 2023|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: Class Action, Coinbase, cryptocurrency, Suski|

Read the Full Article

COURT REJECTS USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUBMIT CLASS CLAIMS

A federal court recently approved a $255 class settlement against Juul for economic losses to consumers who purchased the product but were misled about its addictiveness, causing them to overpay. In re: Juul Labs Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:19-md-02913, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. However, the Court rejected the use of the Artificial Intelligence or AI platform “ClaimClam” to submit class settlement claims and objections en masse. ClaimClam purportedly aggregates and submits claims in exchange for a percentage of each claimant’s recovery.

As is typical […]

By Jeffrey Brundage|2023-10-19T09:38:44-04:00October 19th, 2023|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: claimclam, Class Action, consumers, false advertising, FDA, Juul|

Read the Full Article

Avoiding “False Advertising” and “Genuineness of Product” Class Action Litigation

What makes champagne “champagne”? According to the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), only bubbly wine made through traditional methods and grapes from the Champagne region of France. The United States agreed to this definition in a 2006 trade agreement. Not just wine makers must think twice before affixing the word “champagne” to their product. The CIVC even threatened litigation against Apple for using “champagne” as a color name for the iPhone.

Businesses in the United States increasingly face copy-cat litigation emulating the arguments employed by the CIVC. For example, coffee growers in the Hawaii Kona […]

By Stuart Davis|2023-09-05T13:14:08-04:00September 5th, 2023|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: consumers, false advertising, FDA|

Read the Full Article