Class Action Blog

Most class action cases are complex. Whenever multiple class actions are joined in an MDL, the complexity is greatly increased. This blog post discusses the five consolidated appeals of an objected to nationwide class action settlement. On appeal, a divided three judge panel vacated the class certification and remanded. However, “a majority of the nonrecused active judges” voted to rehear the case en banc. That resulted in six judges joining all of the majority opinion, three judges joining the dissenting opinion, and one judge joining separate parts of the majority and dissenting opinions.

Summary: Three PLS Check Cashers’ (“PLS”) employees filed a consolidated class action complaint asserting violations of several wage and hour and wage statement provisions of the California Labor Code. They settled their state class action claims on a class basis and obtained final court approval under California’s counterpart to Federal Rule 23, resulting in a state court judgment, referred to as the Dieguez settlement. The judgment order stated in part that “Class Members shall take nothing from defendants… except as expressly set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release.” Notice was given to the class members who were given an opportunity to opt out of the settlement class. Pearl Rangel, a PLS worker, was a member of the Dieguez settlement class. She did not opt out and she did not object to the settlement.

Summary: Three class actions were filed against Donald J. Trump and Trump University, one in state court in New York and two in the Southern District of California. The cases were settled for $25 million shortly after Mr. Trump was elected President of the United States. Sherri Simpson was the lone objector who sought to opt out of the class at the settlement stage after failing to opt out when the class was originally certified. She did not “dispute that she received, at the class certification stage, a court approved notice of her right to exclude herself from the class and chose not to do so by the deadline. She argues, however, that the class notice promised her a second opportunity to opt out of the settlement stage, or alternatively, that due process requires this second chance.” The 9th Circuit rejected both arguments.