All posts by Susan Huber

Judge Gorsuch’s Class Action Opinions After Shook

View Susan Huber's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.com View Kevin Crandall’s’s Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comToday we continue our analysis of Judge Gorsuch’s class action opinions from the Tenth Circuit in an effort to better understand how he may rule if confirmed for the Supreme Court. Last week, we examined Judge Gorsuch’s decision in Shook v. Board of County Commissioners, and we will take up his remaining class action opinions below.

McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2011)

In McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, decided three years after Shook, Judge Gorsuch again demonstrates judicial restraint. In McClendon, prisoners brought a class action against the City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, and various individuals involved in operating the Bernalillo County Detention Center. The parties entered into a pair of settlement agreements in 2005, but four years later the district court issued an order withdrawing its approval of the settlement and giving the plaintiffs permission to rescind those agreements after it found that the County misrepresented certain facts during settlement negotiations. The Tenth Circuit held that the order was not a “final decision,” subject to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision, Judge Gorsuch reasoned, dissociates the court from the case and ends the litigation on the merits, while the order withdrawing a settlement approval does “[j]ust the opposite: the order ensures litigation on the merits will continue in the district court.”

Judge Gorsuch empathized with the defendants’ desire for an appeal that might avoid further litigation in a previously settled case that was already fifteen years old: “the delays and costs associated with civil litigation in modern America are substantial and worrisome, and even the most hard-boiled litigator may raise an eyebrow at a case lasting as long as this one.” But neither the utility of the appeal nor the advanced age of the case swayed Judge Gorsuch to take an appeal beyond the bounds of the express authority in § 1291: “Congress’s direction demands our respect, not our rewriting.” Judge Gorsuch concluded his opinion by emphasizing the importance of judicial restraint:

[O]ne thing we may never do is disregard the bounds of our legal authority and assert § 1291 jurisdiction over an appeal where it doesn’t exist. To do so in this case would compound any error the defendants imagine with an impropriety of our own, making matters worse not better. It is, after all, a “central principle of a free society that courts,” no less than the other branches of government, “have finite bounds of authority.” . . . We must respect that principle and those bounds no less when it is hard to do so than when it is easy.

Hammond v. Stamps.com, Inc., 844 F.3d 909 (10th Cir. 2016)

The Tenth Circuit’s holding in Hammond v. Stamps.com, Inc.—that the minimum amount in controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act need only be legally possible and not factually probable—is hardly noteworthy, as it falls squarely in line with the law from other Courts of Appeals. But in Judge Gorsuch’s opinion, his most recent in the class action arena, we see the hallmarks of conservative jurisprudence: interpreting statutory text (here, “in controversy”) with its “traditional meaning”; citation to the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789; and a nod toward the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s textualist approach with a citation to his book, Reading Law. Indeed, it is only after a three-page textual and historical deep dive that Judge Gorsuch cites in the final paragraph of the opinion the “several courts [that] have held as we do today.”

For those of you who yearn to know the facts of the case, Elizabeth Hammond brought a putative class action in New Mexico state court, alleging that Stamps.com engaged in misleading and unlawful trade practices by insufficiently disclosing its subscription fees to customers. She alleged that “hundreds or thousands of persons” called to cancel their Stamps.com subscriptions as a result of Stamps.com alleged wrongdoing, and each class member would “likely” receive $31.98 in damages (the cost of subscribing for two months) or $300 in statutory damages. Stamps.com presented uncontested evidence that 312,680 customers had cancelled their subscriptions during the likely class period, and the company removed the case to federal court because the amount in controversy well exceeded the $5 million threshold for the Class Action Fairness Act. The trial court granted Ms. Hammond’s motion to remand, ruling that the company had not met its burden of establishing the minimum amount in controversy because it failed to exclude from its calculations those customers who cancelled their subscriptions for reasons unrelated to the allegations in the complaint, or as Judge Gorsuch put it, “without proof from Stamps.com establishing how many of its customers were actually deceived, the district court thought the company couldn’t satisfy the $5 million ‘in controversy’ requirement.” The Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s remand order, ruling that federal jurisdiction was proper under CAFA: the proponent of jurisdiction should not have to “argue against himself, task[ed] with the job of proving his own likely liability in a sufficient number of individual cases simply to get a foot in the door of the federal courthouse.”

BP America, Inc. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 613 F.3d 1029 (10th Cir. 2010)

In an earlier CAFA jurisdictional decision, the Tenth Circuit in BP America granted discretionary leave for the propane gas distributor to appeal an order remanding the case to Oklahoma state court. The merits of the jurisdictional question—whether the Attorney General’s lawsuit, brought on behalf of the state and not any individual consumers, constitutes a “mass action” involving monetary relief to 100 or more people under CAFA—were not at issue at this preliminary stage of the appeal.

Judge Gorsuch’s opinion adopts multiple factors to consider in deciding whether to grant discretionary leave to appeal under CAFA § 1453, including whether the appeal presents an important, unsettled, or at least “fairly debatable” CAFA-related question and a weighing of the relative harms to the parties should an appeal be refused or entertained.

Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., 245 F. App’x 839 (10th Cir. 2007)

Although it actually predates Shook, the unpublished decision of Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., is worth noting, if only to highlight the wry humor employed by Judge Gorsuch in dismissing a non-class member’s argument that denying him standing to object to a settlement would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. In addition to the fact that the non-class member presented “no evidence or relevant legal argument to support his contentions,” he also “spen[t] the bulk of his brief noting the inefficiencies and burdens of paper-based litigation.” Perhaps a sentiment with which class action lawyers and judges can relate all too well.

Substantively, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the non-class member lacked standing to object to the proposed settlement. Non-class members opposed to a proposed settlement cannot object directly and instead must seek to intervene under Rule 24.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Recent Filings – June Digest

View Susan Huber's Complete Bio at RBH.com Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of June’s filings:

Watson v. McDonald, No. 15-1715 (4th Cir. June 30, 2015) (docketing appeal from Order dismissing putative class action alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs mishandled patient records; district court held that the putative class’s alleged injury—an increased risk of identity theft—was too speculative to confer standing).

Romano v. 3D Systems Corporation, No. 0:15-cv-2518 (D.S.C. June 23, 2015) (asserting class action on behalf of certain 3D Systems Corporation stockholders for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act). As with the related City of Bristol Pension Fund case, this action was assigned to Judge Mary Lewis.

DeBennedetto v. Thaxton Investment Corporation, No. 6:15-cv-2475 (D.S.C. June 19, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act on behalf of defendants’ Assistant Managers for unpaid overtime wages).

Carrion v. American Concrete Service, Inc., No. 7:15-cv-2447 (D.S.C. June 17, 2015) (removing lawsuit asserting Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act class action for unpaid wages and overtime).

Drouillard v. Vesuvio LLC, No. 2:15-cv-2444 (D.S.C. June 17, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act on behalf of Charleston Bagel Company employees regarding defendants’ alleged “time shaving” and tip-withholding practices).

Govan v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, No. 2:15-cv-2443 (D.S.C. June 17, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages).

Ross v. Hilton Head Island Development Company, LLC, No. 9:15-cv-2446 (D.S.C. June 16, 2016) (asserting multiple tort claims — including under RICO and the South Carolina Vacation Timeshare Act — in a class action against various timeshare entities).

Andrews v. America’s Living Centers, LLC, No. 15-1658 (4th Cir. June 15, 2015) (docketing appeal from Order dismissing putative Fair Labor Standards Act collective action for unpaid wages and overtime arising from defendants’ alleged misclassification of employees; the district court dismissed this action for failure to pay an attorney’s fees award).

Peters v. Aetna Inc., No. 1:15-cv-109 (June 12, 2015 W.D.N.C.) (ERISA and RICO class action alleging improper charging of administrative fees to self-insured health benefit plans by Aetna and various alleged subcontractors of Aetna).

City of Bristol Pension Fund v. 3D Systems Corporation, No. 0:15-cv-2393 (D.S.C. June 12, 2015) (asserting class action on behalf of certain 3D Systems Corporation stockholders for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act).

Vincent v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-2333 (D.S.C. June 9, 2015) (asserting nationwide class action regarding purported defects in Lumber Liquidators’ Chinese wood flooring). This case was initially assigned to Judge Harwell, who was handling the related Green v. Lumber Liquidators, White v. Lumber Liquidators, Sahn v. Lumber Liquidators, Watson v. Lumber Liquidators, and Bolling-Owen v. Lumber Liquidators cases. On June 12, 2015, the MDL Panel issued an Order centralizing ten Lumber Liquidators cases in the Eastern District of Virginia before Judge Anthony Trenga. Through a June 16th Conditional Transfer Order, the MDL Panel transferred 110 additional cases to the E.D.V.A., including Green, White, Sahn, Watson, Bolling-Owen, and Western District of North Carolina’s Duckworth v. Lumber Liquidators case. Vincent and three other cases were similarly transferred on June 29, 2015.

Lemieux v. Horizon, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-2332 (D.S.C. June 9, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of defendants’ Field Superintendents for unpaid overtime wages).

Rodriguez v. Finan, No. 2:15-cv-2317 (D.S.C. June 8, 2015) (asserting statewide class action under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause regarding defendants’ classification of certain first-generation American citizens as nonresidents for college admission and scholarship purposes).

Powell v. The Huntington National Bank, No. 15-1618 (4th Cir. June 8, 2015) (having granted Huntington’s 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) petition to appeal, the Fourth Circuit docketed Huntington’s appeal from the denial of its motion for judgment on the pleadings in putative statewide class action regarding allegedly improper imposition of late fees).

Mingrone v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 6:15-cv-2293 (D.S.C. June 8, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide and state-specific class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York for the reasons stated in the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

North v. Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc., 4:15-cv-2212 (D.S.C. June 1, 2015) (removing lawsuit asserting Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act class action for unpaid wages relating to defendants’ alleged practice of requiring “off the clock” work).

Childress v. Bank of America Corporation, 5:15-cv-231 (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2015) (asserting nationwide class action on behalf of certain military personnel regarding defendants’ alleged violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act).

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Recent Filings – May Digest

View Susan Huber's Complete Bio at RBH.com Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of May’s filings:

Guzman v. Diamond Candles, LLC, 1:15-cv-422 (M.D.N.C. May 29, 2015) (asserting unfair and deceptive trade practice and unjust enrichment claims on behalf of purchasers of defendant’s candles related to defendant’s alleged “illegal lottery scheme,” which involved selling candles with a ring – possibly worth $5,000 – hidden inside).

Cecil v. Hinshaw, 1:15-cv-409 (M.D.N.C. May 22, 2015) (asserting class action on behalf of the Kingston, Inc. Employee Stock Option Plan and certain Plan participants against former Plan administrators and trustees for various alleged ERISA violations).

Hill v. SCA Credit Services, Inc., No. 15-1554 (4th Cir. May 22, 2015) (docketing appeal from order dismissing putative statewide class action regarding defendant’s allegedly improper debt collection practices against West Virginia consumers).

Meller v. Wings Over Spartanburg, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-2094 (D.S.C. May 21, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act on behalf of Wild Wing employees regarding defendants’ tip pooling practices).

Corbin v. CFRA, LLC, 1:15-cv-405 (M.D.N.C. May 21, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of IHOP employees regarding defendant’s “tip credit” practices).

Phillip Singer v. Trans1, Inc., No. 15-1542 (4th Cir. May 19, 2015) (docketing appeal from order dismissing claims against certain executives of Trans1, who were individual defendants in a putative shareholder class action alleging violations of federal securities laws).

Thrailkill v. Top Rank, Inc., No. 7:15-cv-2028 (D.S.C. May 15, 2015) (asserting class action on behalf of South Carolinians who purchased pay per view subscriptions for a boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather; the complaint brings claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment regarding defendants’ alleged failure to disclose Pacquiao injury).

Haynes v. Charleston Retirement Investors, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-2003 (D.S.C. May 13, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act for unpaid wages relating to defendants’ alleged practice of requiring “off the clock” work).

The Huntington National Bank v. Powell, No. 15-178 (4th Cir. May 11, 2015) (petitioning to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from Order denying The Huntington National Bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in putative statewide class action regarding allegedly improper imposition of late fees).

Bolling-Owen v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-1971 (D.S.C. May 8, 2015) (removing putative statewide class action regarding purported defects in Lumber Liquidators’ Chinese wood flooring). As stated in the removal notice, the case is related to the Green v. Lumber Liquidators, White v. Lumber Liquidators, Sahn v. Lumber Liquidators, and Watson v. Lumber Liquidators cases pending before Judge Harwell, to whom the Bolling-Owen case was also assigned.

Robinson v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 6:15-cv-1937 (D.S.C. May 7, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the Southern District of Florida for the reasons stated in the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

Lakowitz v. Bowers, No. 1:15-cv-00371 (M.D.N.C. May 6, 2015) and Li v. Bowers, No. 1:15-cv-00373 (M.D.N.C. May 7, 2015) (identical shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed stock-for-stock merger between Square 1 Financial, a Durham-based company that provides financial and banking services to entrepreneurs, and PacWest Bancorp).

CFRE, LLC v. Adkins, No. 15-1495 (4th Cir. May 6, 2015) (docketing appeal from Order dismissing putative class action for lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act; brought on behalf of Greenville County property owners, the lawsuit arose from a 2010 countywide reassessment).

Asamoah v. Piedmont Petroleum Corp., No. 2:15-cv-1914 (D.S.C. May 5, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages relating to defendants’ alleged practice of requiring “off the clock” work).

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Recent Filings – April Digest

View Susan Huber's Complete Bio at RBH.com Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of April’s filings:

Equifax Information Services v. Soutter, No. 15-172 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2015) (petitioning to appeal under Rule 23(f) from Order certifying class in class action regarding Equifax’s alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act).

Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Fund v. Tonnesen, No. 15-1468 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2015) (docketing appeal from Order dismissing putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Triad Guaranty, Incorporated stock regarding defendants’ alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act).

Johnson v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, No. 3:15-cv-1727 (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2015) (removing under the Class Action Fairness Act a putative class action brought on behalf of South Carolina landowners on whose property defendants have allegedly trespassed).

Davis v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-175 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 2015) (asserting various tort claims for unpaid compensation and benefits in putative class action brought on behalf of former Merrill Lynch employees).

Adams v. Air Methods Corporation, No. 3:15-cv-1683 (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 2015) (asserting class action on behalf of South Carolina trauma victims transported by defendants regarding the validity of the transport charges).

Beck v. Shinseki, No. 15-1395 (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2015) (appealing from Order dismissing for lack of standing putative class action brought on behalf of veterans whose personal and medical information was stored on a missing Veterans Affairs medical center laptop).

Sams v. Kimmel & Godfrey Enterprises, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-1643 (D.S.C. Apr. 15, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act regarding defendants’ alleged failure to pay employees).

Galloway v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 15-1392 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 2015) (appealing from Order compelling arbitration in putative class action alleging violations of Maryland common and statutory law related to allegedly deficient pre-sale notices for repossessed personal property).

Spallone v. SoHo University, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-1622 (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act regarding defendants’ allegedly improper tip pooling practices).

Bontempi v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-1587 (D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2015) (asserting collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of tipped employees at Texas Roadhouse restaurants regarding defendants’ allegedly improper tip pooling practices).

Padilla v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 6:15-cv-1563 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

Austin v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 6:15-cv-1559 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide and state-specific class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the District of Connecticut pursuant to the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

Ucciferri v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 6:15-cv-1535 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the District of New Jersey pursuant to the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

Koshgarian v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 6:15-cv-1534 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the Southern District of New York pursuant to the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

Klein v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 6:15-cv-1536 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide – or, alternatively, state-specific – class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the District of New Jersey pursuant to the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

Hurel v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 6:15-cv-1537 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the District of New Jersey pursuant to the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

Goodall v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, No. 6:15-cv-1538 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 2015) (asserting putative nationwide class action regarding TD Bank’s overdraft fees). This case was transferred from the Middle District of Florida pursuant to the April 2, 2015 In re: TD Bank, N.A. MDL Order.

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Scott Rehberg, No. 15-161 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2015) (petitioning to appeal under Rule 23(f) from Order granting class certification – for class composed of defendants’ North Carolina distributors – on North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claim; the Order also denies defendants’ motion to decertify Fair Labor Standards Act claim that was conditionally certified in 2013).

Besley v. FCA US, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-1511 (D.S.C. Apr. 6, 2015) (asserting nationwide class action for claims of unjust enrichment, negligence per se, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of owners and lessees of FCA Ram pickup trucks for which the Monroney sticker provided inaccurate rear axle ratio information).

Berber v. Hutchison Tree Service, No. 5:15-cv-143 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2015) (asserting on behalf of “salary-paid laborers” a collective action for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action for unpaid wages and overtime compensation under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act).

Chatman v. GC Services, LP, No. 15-157 (4th Cir. Apr. 2, 2015) (petitioning to appeal under Rule 23(f) from Order denying class certification in putative class action asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by third-party debt collectors against South Carolina residents).

In re: TD Banks, N.A. Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, MDL No. 2613 (U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, April 2, 2015) (consolidating in the District of South Carolina eight putative nationwide class actions involving imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank; presiding judge will be Hon. Bruce Howe Hendricks).

Clark v. RCI Entertainment (North Carolina), Inc., No. 3:15-cv-141 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 1, 2015) (asserting collective action for unpaid wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of “entertainers” at Club Onyx-Charlotte).

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Recent Filings – March Digest

View Susan Huber's Complete Bio at RBH.com Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of March’s filings:

Duckworth v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-42 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2015) (asserting statewide class action for purported defects in Lumber Liquidators’ Chinese wood flooring). This is the first North Carolina case involving Lumber Liquidators’ allegedly defective flooring, which is already the subject of the Green, White, Sahn, and Watson cases in South Carolina.

Parker v. A Backyard Creation, LLC, No. 4:15-cv-1389 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2015) (asserting collective action for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from allegedly improper reclassification of “pool tech” workers in March 2014).

Barrett v. Local Lighthouse, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-132 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 2015) — Seeking injunctive relief and statutory damages on behalf of two proposed nationwide classes, Plaintiff has sued Local Lighthouse, Inc. (“Lighthouse”) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The complaint asserts that Lighthouse has violated the TCPA through both repeated telemarketing calls to telephone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry (the “Do Not Call Class”) and unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls to individuals without their consent (the “Robocall Class”). To prevent a preemptive “buy off,” Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification the same day as his complaint.

Watson v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-1259 (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2015) (alleging nationwide class action for purported defects in Lumber Liquidators’ laminate Chinese wood flooring). Unlike Sahn, White, and Green, this case includes one named plaintiff who resides outside South Carolina and asserts a subclass of individuals whose flooring actually contains the alleged defects. As with Sahn and White, Watson has been assigned to the federal judge handling Green.

Sahn v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-1176 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015) (alleging nationwide class action for purported defects in Lumber Liquidators’ Chinese wood flooring). Seeking similar relief and raising similar claims as in Green v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., this case has been assigned to the federal judge handling Green.

White v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-1175 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015) (alleging breach of warranty claims for purported defects in Lumber Liquidators’ laminate Chinese wood flooring). With a class limited to South Carolina residents, this case has been assigned to the federal judge handling Green v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-1111.

Mazur v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-224 (M.D.N.C. March 12, 2015) (contract and UDTP complaint by class of individuals who entered into “standard contracts” with defendant to dispose of medical waste; filed under CAFA and in the apparent aftermath of a qui tam proceeding).

Green v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-1111 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2015) — This purported nationwide class action brings a bevy of claims, including for negligence, breach of warranty, violation of South Carolina Code § 15-73-10, and fraud, against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. and its affiliates for alleged defects in its “Chinese wood flooring material (‘Chinese Flooring’).” The complaint defines a nationwide injunctive and damages class as well as an alternate damages class limited to individuals in South Carolina who have purchased and installed such Chinese Flooring.

Scofield v. Anthem, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00040 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2015) (state-wide class action alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and unfair and deceptive trade practices related to “massive” data breach of personally identifiable information).

Crank v. Elauwit, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-01057 (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 2015) (collective action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime brought on behalf of field technicians who provided fiber optic networking services).

Irvine v. Destination Wild Dunes Mgmt., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00980 (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2015) (collective action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages and overtime based, in part, on tip credit violations at the Sea Island Grill restaurant and related restaurants at the Wild Dunes resort).

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page