Class Actions Blog

Archive for the ‘Class Actions of Interest’ Category

Optical disc drive indirect purchaser antitrust claims certified

Posted on: February 16th, 2016 by Steve Larson

MonitorJudge Seeborg, a California federal judge, has certified a class action on behalf of indirect purchasers accusing Toshiba Corp. and other electronics producers of conspiring to fix the prices of optical disk drives.  The judge had earlier refused to certify an indirect purchaser class action, but said the customers had produced enough expert analysis this time to support their claims.

Our firm represents an Oregon purchaser in this class action.


Lyft will pay $12 million to settle driver misclassification case

Posted on: February 5th, 2016 by Steve Larson


Lyft, Inc. has agreed to pay $12.25 million and give additional job security to a proposed class of current and former California drivers suing the ride-hailing service in California federal court.  However, the company will not classify the drivers as employees.  Instead, Lyft will agree that it does not have the right to terminate drivers at will. With the at-will termination provision gone, drivers will now be able to turn down rides without fear of their account being deactivated. Read more…


Michigan Governor and the City of Flint sued in class action by residents

Posted on: January 22nd, 2016 by Steve Larson

waterMichigan Governor Rick Snyder, the City of Flint and various other state and local government agencies are facing two new class actions over their alleged mishandling of a water quality crisis that endangered the health of thousands of city residents.  The first suit targets Snyder, the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and two individual emergency managers. The second suit names Flint, the city’s Receivership Transition Advisory Board and various officials as defendants. Read more…


U.S. Supreme Court refuses request to force class action into arbitration

Posted on: January 15th, 2016 by Keith Dubanevich

fine printOn January 11, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant review of a decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Healy, Richard, Case No. 15-466.

The Tenth Circuit had previously rejected Cox’s bid to force an on-going multidistrict litigation into arbitration.  The dispute dates back to 2009, when several of Cox’s premium cable subscribers filed suits against the company for allegedly tying the service to set-top box rentals.

Upholding an Oklahoma judge’s decision to deny arbitration, the Tenth Circuit said that by letting “extensive” pretrial discovery and ample motion practice occur before it pointed to an arbitration clause in its customer contracts, the company waived its right to compel arbitration.

In the opinion Circuit Judge Carlos F. Lucero said that Cox was “essentially asking for a redo” of the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification after the trial court had conducted a laborious analysis under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion blasted the arbitration request by suggesting it would have led to a waste of “a copious amount of judicial resources *** at great expense to the public.”

Judge Lucero added: “Cox’s complete failure to mention the presence of its arbitration contracts, despite the obvious impact that they would have on the court’s Rule 23 analysis, is clearly inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate.”


Conair class action certified

Posted on: January 13th, 2016 by Steve Larson

A California federal judge has certified a nationwide class action on behalf of of consumers claiming that Conair Corp. breached its implied warranty by selling them hair dryers that caught on fire. The class is made up of consumers who purchased either a model 259 or model 279 Infiniti Pro hair dryer between Aug. 15, 2009, and the present, either directly by or through a retailer. The judge found that whether the hair dryer contained coil and cord defects that caused it to burst into flames, was a common question appropriate for certification of a nationwide class. Read more…


Fitbit named in class action alleging inaccurate heart rate monitoring

Posted on: January 12th, 2016 by Steve Larson

Fitbit is named in a class action lawsuit alleging that its heart rate monitoring technology— which it calls PurePulse—is inaccurate.  Essentially, Fitbit uses LED lights to monitor blood flow through a user’s wrist and, by using algorithms, can determine a user’s heart rate. Similar technology is used in the Apple Watch, along with several more competing smartwatches and fitness trackers. Read more…


Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.

About Class Actions:

About this blog

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

About the author

  • Steve Larson

  • Steve Larson
  • Steve Larson has been representing investors, consumers and employees in class actions in Oregon for over 20 years. He is a shareholder at the law firm of Stoll Berne in Portland, Oregon.
Follow stollberne on Twitter

Subscribe to this blog