Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2011, Eminence Investors, LLLP (Plaintiff) brought suit against against The Bank of New York Mellon (Defendant). Nearly two years later, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding class allegations on behalf of more than 100 class members and requesting compensatory damages expected to exceed $10 million. Within thirty days of the filing of the complaint, Defendant removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. The district court remanded the case to state court, concluding that removal was untimely. Defendant appealed. A panel of the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the appeal, holding that the securities exception from CAFA removal applied to this case. View "Eminence Investors, LLLP v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action in California state court alleging that Dollar Tree Stores Inc. violated California state law by denying proper rest breaks to its employees. Dollar Tree removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court granted Plaintiff’s request to remand back to California state court because the CAFA $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied. After remand, a California superior court certified a broader class. Dollar Tree again filed a notice of removal, arguing that the expanded class actually certified placed at least $5 million in controversy. The district court concluded that the second removal was untimely because the order was based on the same complaint that had been the subject of the first removal. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the state court’s class certification order created a new occasion for removal, and the second removal was permissible; (2) the second removal was timely; and (3) because the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA were met, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Remanded. View "Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit in Washington state court against Nationstar Mortgage LLC, alleging several causes of action, including violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationstar filed a notice of removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand the proceeding to state court, arguing that its removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). The district court granted the motion and awarded Plaintiff attorney fees and costs because it found that Nationstar did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removal. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) Nationstar’s removal under CAFA was timely, and therefore, the action properly belonged in federal court; and (2) the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees that was premised on improper removal must be reversed. View "Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a putative class of owners of Microsoft Corporation’s Xbox 360 video game console, alleged that a design defect in the Xbox console gouged game discs. The district court approved a stipulated dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit and entered an order striking their class allegations, concluding that comity required deferral to an earlier class certification denial from another district court decision involving the same subject matter. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) this court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291 because the district court’s dismissal of the action with prejudice, even when the dismissal was the product of a stipulation, was a sufficiently adverse, and thus appealable, final decision; and (2) the Court’s decision in Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC was controlling, and the district court’s decision striking the class action allegations from the complaint contravened Wolin and was an abuse of discretion. View "Baker v. Microsoft Corp." on Justia Law

A class of Netflix DVD subscribers filed a consolidated amended class action against Netflix and Walmart, claiming that a promotion agreement whereby Walmart transferred its online DVD-rental subscribers to Netflix and Netflix agreed to promote Walmart’s DVD sales business was anti-competitive. The district court approved of a settlement between Walmart and the class of Netflix subscribers whereby Walmart agreed to pay a total amount of $27,250,000. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) approving the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) certifying the settlement class; and (3) awarding attorneys’ fees of twenty-five percent of the overall settlement fund. View "Frank v. Netflix, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals representing a class of Netflix subscribers, contended that a promotion agreement whereby Walmart transferred its online DVD-rental subscribers to Netflix and Netflix agreed to promote Walmart’s DVD sales business violated the Sherman Act by illegally allocating and monopolizing the online DVD rental market. The district court granted summary judgment for Netflix and awarded Netflix $710,194 in costs. The Ninth Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that Plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they suffered antitrust in-jury-in-fact on a theory that they paid supracompetitive prices for their DVD-rental subscriptions because Netflix would have reduced its subscription price but for its allegedly anticompetitive product; and (2) affirmed in part and reversed in part the award of costs, holding that certain charges for “data upload” and “keywording” were not recoverable as costs for making copies under 28 U.S.C. 1920(4). Remanded for consideration of whether costs were properly awarded for “professional services.” View "Resnick v. Netflix, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), against Knight, alleging that Knight misclassified them as independent contractors and asserting other labor law violations. Knight removed to federal court, but the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court. The district court concluded that Knight did not meet its burden of proof to establish the amount in controversy because all of Knight's calculations relied on a flawed assumption that all drivers worked 50 weeks a year. The court held in Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., filed simultaneously with this opinion, that when the defendant relies on a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions to satisfy its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the chain of reasoning and its underlying assumptions must be reasonable. Applying Ibarra, the court concluded that because defendants relied on a reasonable chain of logic and presented sufficient evidence to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, defendants have met their burden of proof. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "LaCross v. Knight Transportation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against his former employer, Manheim, alleging violations of the California Labor Code. Manheim removed the case to federal court and the district court remanded to state court, concluding that Manheim's proof of the $5 million amount in controversy requirement was inadequate. At issue was what a defendant seeking removal must produce to prove the amount-in-controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), when the complaint does not include a facially apparent amount in controversy or the plaintiff may have understated the true amount in controversy. The court concluded that when " a defendant's assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged... both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied." A damages assessment may require a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions and such assumptions must be based on reasonable ground. Because the complaint does not allege that Manheim universally, on each and every shift, violates labor laws by not giving rest and meal breaks, Manheim bears the burden to show that its estimated amount in controversy relied on reasonable assumptions. A remand is necessary to allow both sides to submit evidence related to the contested amount in controversy. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ibarra v. Manheim Investment, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against Old Republic, a company that sells home warranty plans, alleging that Old Republic arbitrarily denied claims made by him and a putative class of similarly situated policyholders of Old Republic plans, or otherwise cheated him and this class out of benefits owed under their policies. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's orders denying his motion for class certification, denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint, and granting Old Republic's motion for partial summary judgment. The court did not reach the merits of the district court's order because the appeal is moot. The parties settled all of plaintiff's claims and plaintiff expressly released all of his claims against Old Republic. Applying Narouz v. Charter Commc'sn, the court concluded that the appeal is moot because plaintiff has no financial interest or other personal interest whatsoever in class certification. View "Campion v. Old Republic Protection Co." on Justia Law

IntelliGender sold and advertised the IntelliGender Prediction Test as an accurate predictor of a fetus's gender using the mother's urine sample. The district court approved a Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), settlement between a nationwide certified class of purchasers of the Test and IntelliGender. The State subsequently filed an enforcement action against IntelliGender under the State's Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws, largely based on the same claims as the class action. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied IntelliGender's motion to enjoin the State's enforcement action in its entirety where IntelliGender had not met its burden of showing that the CAFA class action settlement could bind the State in its sovereign capacity, where it asserted both public and private interests. The court agreed that a CAFA class action settlement, though approved by the district court, does not act as res judicata against the State in its sovereign capacity, even though many of the same claims are included in both actions. Because the State action is brought on behalf of the people, it implicates the public's interests as well as private interests, and therefore the remedial provisions sweep much more broadly. The court concluded, however, that the State is precluded from seeking the same relief sought in the CAFA class action where IntelliGender provided notice to the appropriate parties of the class action and the State chose not to participate. Therefore, the district court erred in denying IntelliGender's motion to enjoin the State's claims for restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "State of California v. IntelliGender" on Justia Law