Class Action News Wire

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[02/09] Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp.
In a putative class action against retail drug stores filed by a plaintiff who had been part of a previously settled class action against a wholesale prescription-drug distributor and a publisher of information about prescription drugs, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, where: 1) the district court properly considered the evidence the parties presented and concluded that a covenant not to sue in the settlement agreement was intended to bar against third parties claims that were related to the claims released; 2) enforcing the prior judgment and settlement agreement against the plaintiff, including the covenant not to sue, did not violate the plaintiff's due process rights; and 3) the elements of issue preclusion were met.

[02/08] Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.
In a class action for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California laws, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is vacated, where: 1) the issue of whether the district court properly applied California's choice of law framework was not waived; 2) the district court erred when it concluded that Georgia law applied; 3) the parties' choice of Georgia law was unenforceable in California; and 4) under California's choice of law framework, the law of California applied.

[02/06] Duran v. U.S. Bank NA
In a wage and hour class action brought by current and former business banking officers who claimed they were misclassified by the defendant bank as outside sales personnel exempt from California's overtime laws, and were thus unlawfully denied overtime pay, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed, where: 1) the trial plan erroneously relied on representative sampling and thus violated the bank's right to due process of law; 2) the trial court's refusal to allow the bank to introduce evidence to challenge the claims of certain class members violated its due process rights; 3) the statistical sampling methods, with their 43.3 percent margin of error, produced results so unreliable as to render the judgment unconstitutional; and 4) the trial court erred in denying a motion to decertify the class.

[02/02] Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.

Read More

Consumer Protection

Read More