Having trouble reading this email? View in your browser.

AUGUST 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Breach of Contract
Civil Rights
Consumer Fraud
Data Disclosure
Employment
ERISA
Fair Credit Reporting Act
Insurance
Securities
Social Security Benefits

Class Action Decisions Published June 2025

BREACH OF CONTRACT

District Court Orders Granting Certification

Handorf v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co., 2025 WL 1573209 (N.D. Iowa June 3, 2025) 
 

The court certified a class alleging that Transamerica raised monthly deduction rates and cost of insurance rates on universal life insurance policies in violation of the terms of the insurance policies.

District Court Orders Granting Partial Certification

Rabin v. Google LLC, 2025 WL 1720532 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2025) 

The court partially certified a class of Google customers who claimed Google breached contracts when it cancelled services it allegedly promised would remain free in perpetuity. In 2006, Google launched a free “beta” service called “Google Apps Standard Edition.” In 2007, Google began offering a paid version, called “Premier Edition.” In 2012, Google stopped allowing users to sign up for the Standard Edition and only allowed legacy users to keep using it. In January 2022, Google announced its plans to eliminate the Standard Edition, even for legacy users. In April 2022, Google, however, allowed non-commercial legacy users to “opt out” and continue using the free Standard Edition. The court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of commercial users who were not eligible to “opt out” of the transition to a paid version. It refused to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class because the class sought primarily monetary relief. It also refused to certify a class of non-commercial users who did not opt out because approximately 180,000 non-commercial users opted out, so determining why the remaining non-commercial users failed to opt-out would require individualized inquiries regarding the notice provided to those users and the reasons for not accepting continued free access to the Standard Edition.

District Court Orders Denying Certification

Rider v. Oxy USA, Inc., 2025 WL 1707377 (D. Kan. June 18, 2025) 

The court denied certification of a class that alleged Oxy and Merit breached a settlement agreement by taking improper deductions from royalty payments in excess of what the settlement allowed. In a prior case, plaintiffs alleged Oxy had failed to properly pay required royalty payments under oil and gas leases within the Kansas Hugoton Gas Field. The class in that case was certified, and the case settled with the settlement setting forth specific limitations on Oxy’s future royalty payments. Merit subsequently acquired Oxy’s assets in the Kansas Hugoton Gas Field and took over operation of Oxy’s oil and gas leases. In the current suit, the plaintiffs sued Oxy and Merit. The court found the class failed the ascertainability requirement because class membership was premised on whether class members owned mineral interests in lands burdened by oil and gas leases, but to determine whether someone was a class member would require individual inquiries into Merit’s payment records, lease records and acquisition records, along with public land records and relevant transfer documents for each payee. Because of individual inquiries related to property ownership and deductions, the court also found the class failed the commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Appellate Issues

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis, 145 S. Ct. 1608 (U.S. June 5, 2025)

This case involved claims that Labcorp provided self-service kiosks for patients to check in for their diagnostic laboratory services that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act because blind and visually impaired patients required assistance to use the kiosks. Laboratory Corporation argued a class that contained injured and uninjured class members could not be certified. The district court certified a class; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Rule 23 permits certification of a class even when the class “potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members.” The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether federal courts may certify a Rule 23 damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a per curiam decision that the writ of certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented. He held that a federal court may not certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members because in such a case, common questions do not predominate.

A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364 (U.S. May 16, 2025) 

The United States Supreme Court granted injunctive relief against summary removal under the Alien Enemies Act of Venezuelan nationals who are alleged members of the Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization. The court granted classwide relief holding that under the circumstances of this case, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, did not pass constitutional muster. Judges Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. They held it was doubtful that class relief may be obtained in a habeas proceeding, and that, even if something resembling a class action could be used in a habeas proceeding, it was very questionable whether the requirements for class certification could be met in this case. In particular, adequate notice of removal and an opportunity to contest this removal was not needed by the named plaintiffs who already had a pending habeas proceeding and a promise they would not be removed until that proceeding concluded. (The majority rejected the argument a class-action defendant may defeat class treatment by promising as a matter of grace to treat named plaintiffs differently.) 

Pickett v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 2025 WL 1622110 (6th Cir. June 9, 2025) 

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the certification of a class of African Americans who alleged the City of Cleveland assessed more water liens to properties in majority Black neighborhoods than those in majority white neighborhoods. To trigger the placement of a water lien, a customer must: (1) fall behind on a water bill for at least 180 days and (2) owe an account balance of $300 or more. The Sixth Circuit held that even plaintiffs that had not suffered economic harm had Article III standing by virtue of their Fair Housing Act Claim—which makes it unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” This claim constituted an injury in fact that has a close relationship to traditional harms. Judge Julia Smith Gibbons concurred. She reiterated a separate point that the district court erred as a matter of law when it stated the city had forfeited its Rule 23(b)(2) challenge because the burden is on the party seeking certification and the protections essential to all class actions cannot be forfeited by a defendant who does not represent the interests of putative class members.

McCoy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 2025 WL 1702193 (4th Cir. June 18, 2025) 

In this case, 18-to-20-year-olds who wanted to buy handguns alleged that 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1)—which prohibits the commercial sale of handguns to individuals under the age of 21—violates the Second Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. After it ruled on the merits, the district court certified a nationwide class. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding the district court’s decision to certify the class was error because the district court did not certify the class at “an early practicable time.” The Fourth Circuit also reversed the grant of summary judgment. Judge Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. dissented. He found no error in certifying a class after granting summary judgment here because (1) it was a Rule 23(b)(2) “mandatory” class with no opt-out rights, (2) the facial constitutional challenge involved no discovery so certification was at an “early practicable time,” and (3) both parties moved forward with dispositive motions before the class certification decision.

Trump v. CASA, Inc., 2025 WL 1773631 (U.S. June 27, 2025) 

In this case, immigration rights groups and noncitizen expectant mothers brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the president, federal officials and the United States, alleging that executive order restricting birthright citizenship violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and the Nationality Act of 1940. The district court granted a universal preliminary injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that “universal injunctions” likely exceed the equitable authority Congress has granted to federal courts. There are also some statements related to class actions.

• The majority held that a “properly conducted class action” can only come about through the procedures set out in Rule 23 and that universal injunctions would forge a shortcut that circumvents Rule 23’s procedural protections and allow courts to “create de facto class actions at will.” 
• Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas filed a concurrence that stated that “[p]utting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing to disrupt Rule 23’s requirements” and that “Rule 23 may permit the certification of nationwide classes in some discrete scenarios.” They cautioned, however, that “district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23” or else “the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief,’ and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.”
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurrence and wrote that, “in wake of the Court’s decision, plaintiffs who challenge the legality of a new federal statute or executive action and request preliminary injunctive relief may sometimes seek to proceed by class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and ask a court to award preliminary relief that may, for example, be statewide, regionwide, or even nationwide.”
• Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent. They argued that “nothing in Rule 23 purports to supplant or modify federal courts’ equitable authority under the Judiciary Act to grant relief to nonparties” and that “Rule 23 has coexisted with universal injunctions against the Government for decades.” They concluded by stating, “the parents of children covered by the Citizenship Order would be well advised to file promptly class-actions suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class pending class certification.”

CONSUMER FRAUD

Appellate Issues

McMahon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2025 WL 1604501 (3d Cir. June 6, 2025)
 
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying certification of a class of cash-paying Chipotle customers who alleged they did not receive accurate change for their orders because Chipotle was not giving coins as change due to a coin shortage during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Third Circuit affirmed that the class failed the ascertainability requirement. The plaintiffs proposed the class could be identified using video surveillance footage, but, even if cash-paying customers could be identified, the customers who received no coins were not necessarily shortchanged, either because their orders were round amounts or because Chipotle rounded down. 

District Court Orders Denying Certification

Mickelonis v. Aspyr Media, Inc., 2025 WL 1605332 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2025)

The court denied certification of a class that alleged they bought the video game “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords” on the Nintendo Switch based on advertisement that downloadable content for the game would include a version of the game created by modders using previously unreleased code but that the modded version was not included as downloadable content. The court found the class failed the superiority requirement because it would take individual inquiries to determine whether each class member bought the game in reliance on these advertisements. If you limited the class to only those that saw the advertisements, it still failed the superiority requirement because there was no way to determine who saw the advertisements.

Motions to Strike

Mongalo v. Crocs, Inc., 2025 WL 1725002 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2025) 

The court largely denied a motion to strike class allegations in a case alleging Crocs marketed its classic and bayaband croc clogs as suitable for use in ordinary heat or direct sunlight even though it knew the products contained a plastic material that shrinks upon exposure to ordinary heat or direct sunlight. The court did, however, limit the start of the proposed class period to December 13, 2020, because the originally requested start date, November 22, 2018, was outside the four-year statute of limitations period. 

Settlements Approved 

Granados v. OnPoint Community Credit, 2025 WL 1640204 (D. Ore. June 10, 2025) 

The court granted final approval to a class action settlement alleging OnPoint violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act through its policy of denying claims involving unauthorized transactions when OnPoint believed access to the account was gained because of fraud or when the consumer did not sufficiently protect account information. In this case, the named plaintiff alleged a person fraudulently misrepresented himself as a representative of OnPoint’s “Fraud Department” and obtained the PIN for the named plaintiffs’ OnPoint debit card, which the fraudster used to withdraw money from the named plaintiff’s OnPoint account. The settlement was for $500,000.

DATA DISCLOSURE

Appellate Issues

Maldini v. Marriott International, Inc., 2025 WL 1560372 (4th Cir. June 3, 2025) 

The Fourth Circuit reversed the certification of a class of Marriott customers that were victims of a data breach, in which hackers were able to view customers’ personal information and payment card information. Each class member’s contract had a clause that said any disputes “arising out of or related” to the contract “be handled individually without any class action.” The district court held Marriott waived its right to rely on this clause by proceeding in MDL proceedings. The Fourth Circuit held that participation in an MDL is not incompatible with the clause because it is well established that cases in an MDL remain separate actions despite being coordinated for pretrial purposes. The district court also held the clause was invalid and unenforceable because it conflicts with Rule 23’s class-action provisions. The Fourth Circuit reversed, noting that courts routinely enforce contractual class-action waivers.

District Court Orders Denying Certification

Calhoun v. Google LLC, 2025 WL 1637574 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2025) 

The court denied certification of a class of users of Google’s Chrome web browser who alleged their privacy rights were violated when Google appropriated personally identifiable information it had contractually promised to leave untouched. The court found the class failed the predominance requirement because Google had shown there would need to be individualized inquiries as to each user’s subjective understanding of its data collection practices and which class members had provided consent.

EMPLOYMENT

District Court Orders Granting Certification

Hodge v. Synergy Inspections, LLC, 2025 WL 1690151 (S.D.W.Va. June 16, 2025) 

The court certified a class of former workers of the defendants who alleged they were terminated without providing the required notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notice Act (the WARN Act).

Johnson v. North Memorial Health Care, 2025 WL 1719257 (D. Minn. June 20, 2025) 

The court certified a class of emergency medical technicians working for North Memorial who alleged they were not properly paid minimum wages or overtime because their time spent on-call was not included when determining whether they earned overtime.

District Court Orders Granting Partial Certification

Hamilton v. Knight Transportation Inc., 2025 WL 1576803 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2025) 

The court certified classes of drivers for the defendant who alleged they were not paid for all hours worked. The court refused, however, to certify a class who alleged they were reimbursed no more than $5 per month for cell phone reimbursement. The court found this class failed the predominance requirement because the plaintiffs did not reasonably dispute the cell phones were not required by drivers to accomplish their required duties. 

District Court Orders Denying Certification

Reid v. A-Plus Care HHC Inc., 2025 WL 1703066 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2025) 

The court adopted the recommendation of a magistrate judge to deny certification of a class of home health aides who alleged they worked 24-hour shifts in which they did not get a one-hour meal breaks and did not get eight hours of aggregate sleep during each shift or five hours of uninterrupted sleep. The court found the class failed the predominance requirement because each class member would need to present individual evidence about the hours actually worked and what occurred during that time.

Motions to Strike

West v. Bam Pizza Management, Inc., 2025 WL 1737920 (D.N.M. June 23, 2025)

The court denied as premature a motion to strike class allegations in a case brought by Domino’s delivery drivers who alleged wage and hour violations. The defendant argued most class members, but not the named plaintiffs, were subject to arbitration agreements. The court found the record was incomplete and genuine issues of fact remained regarding whether the parties formed arbitration agreements. 

Settlements Approved

Cruz v. MM 879, Inc., 2025 WL 1684354 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2025) 

The court granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement brought by a class of cleaners alleging California state labor law violations. The settlement was for $995,000.

Ovando v. Mountaire Farms Inc., 2025 WL 1733070 (E.D.N.C. May 15, 2025) 

A magistrate judge recommended the court grant preliminary approval to a class action settlement alleging Mountaire did not pay its chicken-process line employees for time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment, made unlawful deductions for payments for chickens purchased through Mountaire’s employee chicken-sale program, and made unlawful charges for optional and lost/damaged gear. The settlement was for $7.26 million. 

ERISA

District Court Orders Granting Certification

Berkeley v. Intel Corp., 2025 WL 1785320 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2025) 

The court certified a class alleging Intel violated ERISA by converting single life annuities to joint and survivor annuities using unreasonable actuarial assumptions in the Intel Minimum Pension Plan.

Settlements Approved

Andrew-Berry v. Weiss, 2025 WL 1549102 (D. Conn. May 30, 2025) 

The court granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement alleging the defendants violated ERISA in their administration of the company’s retirement benefit plan by violating their fiduciary duties and engaging in prohibited transactions.  

Nado v. John Muir Health, 2025 WL 1725001 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2025) 

The court granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement alleging John Muir violated ERISA when it breached duties owed to participants in the John Muir Health 403(b) Plan by paying excessive recordkeeping and administrative service fees and misallocating plan forfeitures. The settlement was for $950,000.

FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

Settlements Approved

Taylor v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., 2025 WL 1766148 (D.N.J. June 26, 2025) 

A magistrate judge granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement alleging J.B. Hunt violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by relying on consumer reports to make adverse employment decisions without providing job applicants an opportunity to dispute the content of the reports. The settlement was for $5 million.

INSURANCE

District Court Orders Granting Certification

Rutherford v. Health Care Service Corp., 2025 WL 1654986 (D. Mont. June 11, 2025) 

The court certified a class alleging HCSC systematically denied claims as “Not Medically Necessary” without having conducted an investigation into the claims.

Settlements Approved

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 2025 WL 1683082 (D. Conn. June 16, 2025)

The court granted final approval to a class action settlement involving alleged breaches of life insurance policy provisions governing “cost of insurance” deducted from the investment portions of policies. The settlement was for $147,474,191.99.

SECURITIES

Settlements Approved

Hunter v. Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc., 2025 WL 1649323 (E.D.N.Y. June 11, 2025) 

A magistrate judge recommended the court grant preliminary approval to a class action settlement alleging Blue Ridge made material misstatements in its securities filings when its new chief lending officer made a series of large loans that were not properly recognized as troubled debt restructuring and nonaccrual. 

In re ImmunityBio, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2025 WL 1686263 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2025) 

The court granted final approval to a class action settlement alleging ImmunityBio made materially misleading statements and omissions regarding its manufacturing capabilities, compliance with FDA regulations, and the prospects for FDA approval of its lead product candidate, Anktiva. The settlement was for $10.5 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

District Court Orders Granting Certification

L.N.P. v. Dudek, 2025 WL 1551521 (E.D. Va. May 30, 2025) 
The court certified a class that alleged the Social Security Administration had been applying the wrong formula in calculating social security benefits that are payable to children of parents who retire before reaching the full retirement age.

CONTACT

Mitch Engel
816.559.2277
mengel@shb.com

ABOUT SHOOK

Whether the goal is to defeat class certification, win the case at trial or otherwise resolve litigation on favorable terms, Shook, Hardy & Bacon has a proven record of reducing the risks posed by complex litigation. Named a standout by BTI Litigation Outlook, Shook’s Class Action and Complex Litigation Practice has represented numerous Fortune 500 companies affected by legal actions targeting entire industries, including class actions and large numbers of individual cases aggregated under multidistrict litigation or state consolidation procedures.

Utilizing the firm’s arsenal of veteran litigators and trial-support systems, our approach involves careful evaluation of each case to design a solution that minimizes the risks and burdens of litigation while maximizing the likelihood of a favorable resolution. For additional information about the Class Action and Complex Litigation Practice, please see our website.