On July 29, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California issued a decertification order in a long-running class action dispute concerning Cricket Wireless’s 4G advertising, ruling that plaintiff’s counsel made “too critical a mistake” in fashioning their class-wide damages model. See Freitas v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, 2022 WL 3018061, at *6 (N.D. Cal.
Latest from Inside Class Actions
Class Certification Denied in Data Breach Class Action Based on Class-Action Waiver in Terms of Service
The Northern District of California denied class certification in a data breach suit against Zoosk, an online dating service, concluding that the lead plaintiff had waived any right to represent a class by agreeing to a class-action waiver. See Order Denying Class Certification, Flores-Mendez v. Zoosk, Inc., No. 3:20-04929-WHA (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2022).
Eleventh Circuit Holds that All Class Members Must Have Standing Under Circuit Law to Recover Individual Damages
In Drazen v. Pinto, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a class settlement and held that in order to receive individual damages (whether through a settlement or otherwise), all class members must have Article III standing under Circuit precedent. 2022 WL 2963470, at *6 (11th Cir. July 27, 2022). The decision gives defendants another tool to defeat
Eleventh Circuit Confirms Circuit Split Over Class Representative Incentive Awards
The en banc Eleventh Circuit recently denied a petition to rehear the case of Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC (Johnson II). See 2022 WL 3083717 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022). The initial opinion in Johnson relied on two Supreme Court decisions from the 1880s to hold that district courts can never, under any circumstances, approve
Court Denies Motion to Remand Build-A-Bear TCPA Suit When Standing Raised as an Affirmative Defense
On July 21, the federal district court denied remand of a proposed class action against Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to remand based merely on Build-A-Bear raising lack of standing as an affirmative defense in its answer. See Order Denying Motion to Remand, Ruby v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-01152-JAR (E.D. Mo. July
Seventh Circuit Rejects “Stealth” Class Actions
Can plaintiffs spring a class action on defendants in the late stages of a case? The Seventh Circuit recently answered no in Ali v. City of Chicago, 34 F.4th 594 (7th Cir. 2022), rejecting so-called stealth class actions and reaffirming a seemingly obvious rule: a class action “must be brought as a class action.”
Court Tosses “Android Lockbox” Secret Spying Program Class Action
Last week, the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action lawsuit against Google, which alleged that the company used a secret program called “Android Lockbox” to spy on Android smartphone users. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Hammerling v. Google LLC, No. 21-cv-09004-CRB (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2022). The complaint alleged ten different
Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Class Claims Based Upon Speculative Hacking Risk
Late last week, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a trial court’s ruling granting dismissal at summary judgment of claims against FCA US LLC (“FCA,” formerly known as Chrysler) and Harman International Industries, Inc. (“Harman”) for lack of Article III standing. See Flynn v. FCA US LLC, — F. 4th —-, 2022 WL 2751660 (7th Cir. July
Court dismisses class claims related to cyber vulnerability embargo
After several twist and turns, on July 7th Intel Corp. succeeded in achieving final dismissal of class claims alleging that Intel knew about purported security vulnerabilities in its microprocessors and failed to disclose or mitigate those vulnerabilities. The case, In Re Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 3:18-md-02828, had a long
Federal Court Stays Suit Implicating Accrual of Claims Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
Last week, an Illinois federal district court granted the defendant’s motion to stay in Stegmann v. PetSmart, No. 1:22-cv-01179 (N.D. Ill.). The case implicates the evolving law surrounding the scope of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and a pending Illinois Supreme Court case that could provide an important defense to certain BIPA suits.