Defending No-Injury Class Actions Post-Spokeo: Standing for Statutory Violations, State Court Litigation, and CAFA Removal

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Defending No-Injury Class Actions Post-Spokeo: Standing for Statutory Violations, State Court Litigation, and CAFA Removal"

Willa Simon
5 years ago
Views:

1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending No-Injury Class Actions Post-Spokeo: Standing for Statutory Violations, State Court Litigation, and CAFA Removal THURSDAY, APRIL 27, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Gavin J. Rooney, Partner and Chair, Class Action Litigation Group, Lowenstein Sandler, New York and Roseland, N.J. Archis A. Parasharami, Partner, Mayer Brown, Washington, D.C. Daniel E. Jones, Esq., Mayer Brown, Washington, D.C. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.

2 Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at ext. 35.

4 Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

5 Defending No-Injury Class Actions Under Spokeo Inc. v. Robins: April 2017 Standing for Statutory Violations, State Court Litigation, and CAFA Removal Gavin Rooney Lowenstein Sandler LLP Archis A. Parasharami Mayer Brown LLP Daniel E. Jones Mayer Brown LLP

6 Agenda Review of the Spokeo decision, its background, and ramifications. Review of Spokeo s treatment in the circuit courts. Case study in Spokeo s application by the district courts: TCCWNA class actions. Impact of Spokeo on removal of no-injury class actions. Implications for future defense of no-injury class actions. Questions and answers. 6

7 THE SPOKEO DECISION 7

8 Robins Lawsuit Spokeo is a people search engine: aggregates publicly available info from variety of sources into an online searchable database Disclaims any guarantees as to accuracy of information and warns that information should not be used for FCRA purposes Plaintiff says that information about him suggests that he is wealthier and more educated than he really is, and married when he is single He filed a putative class action alleging that Spokeo is a consumer reporting agency and that it violates FCRA; seeks statutory damages In amended complaint, in addition to claiming a bare statutory violation, he says that he has suffered purportedly concrete harm because of allegedly diminished employment prospects and related anxiety 8

9 District Court Proceedings Dismissed initial complaint Initially concluded that amended complaint could go forward After Spokeo sought Section 1292(b) certification, district court reversed course and on its own motion decided to dismiss for lack of standing Held that allegations about harm to future employment prospects were too speculative to satisfy Supreme Court s injury-in-fact standard 9

10 Ninth Circuit s Decision Ninth Circuit reversed district court s dismissal for lack of standing Did not reach the argument about diminished employment prospects Found standing based on the broad theory that it is sufficient simply to allege a statutory violation Relied on prior CA9 decision in Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010) Supreme Court had granted cert; DIG on last day of term in June

11 The Supreme Court s Holding Court vacated and remanded; Ninth Circuit had focused on particularized element only, holding that the plaintiff had standing based simply on his allegation that Spokeo violated his statutory rights This was error, the Supreme Court explained, because it ignored the concreteness element of injury in fact Core holding: Congress role in identifying and elevating intangible harms does not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right. Instead, Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. 11

12 What Does Concrete Mean? Injury must be de facto that is, it must actually exist and be real, and not abstract Includes not just tangible injuries (such as loss of money) but also some intangible harms In determining whether an intangible harm constitutes injury in fact, both history and the judgment of Congress play important roles Existence of a private right of action under a statute does not automatically meet the real harm standard If concrete harm is not an element of statutory cause of action, it must be proven separately 12

13 Claimed Future Harms Likely Must Satisfy Clapper The Court also pointed out that the plaintiff need not always have suffered concrete harm in the past in order to sue: a risk of real harm can in some circumstances satisfy the concrete harm requirement The Court cited its prior ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct (2013) Clapper: a threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact, and [a]llegations of possible future injury are not sufficient. Id. at 1147 (quotation marks omitted) 13

14 POST-SPOKEO CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS 14

15 Post-Spokeo Circuit Court Decisions Hundreds of cases applying Spokeo already, just under a year later. Courts are divided; however, many appellate decisions reaffirm Spokeo s core holding that bare violation of statute not sufficient to satisfy Article III. CA7: Meyers v. Nicolet Rest., 843 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2016). No injury in fact for bare allegation that restaurant violated FACTA by failing to truncate expiration date on receipt. Plaintiff retained the receipt and nobody else ever saw it, so it is hard to imagine how the expiration date s presence could have increased the risk that Meyers identity would be compromised. Also rejects distinction between substantive and procedural rights: what matters is injury in fact, not characterization of the violation. Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, 846 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2017). No injury from allegation that cable company violated Cable Communications Policy Act (CCPA) by retaining consumers personal information beyond the statutory deadline for deleting it. 15

16 Post-Spokeo Circuit Court Decisions CA8: Braitberg v. Charter Commc ns, 836 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2016). Nearly identical CCPA claim brought by same plaintiff s lawyer as in Gubala. Again no injury in fact for mere retention of info beyond statutory deadline. Held that Spokeo changed the law and superseded the absolute view of prior 8th Cir. decisions holding that any statutory violation amounts to injury in fact. DC Cir.: Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, 830 F.3d 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016). No injury in fact from requesting customer s zip code at time of purchase in alleged violation of D.C. consumer protection statute. If, as the Supreme Court advised, disclosure of an incorrect zip code is not a concrete Article III injury, then even less so is [plaintiffs ] naked assertion that a zip code was requested and recorded without any concrete consequence. CA11: Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, 839 F.3d 998 (11th Cir. 2016). No injury in fact from defendant s allegedly delayed recording of a mortgage after NY statutory deadline of 90-days, with no consequence. 16

17 Post-Spokeo Circuit Court Decisions CA6: Lyshe v. Levy, --- F.3d WL (6th Cir. 2017). No injury in fact in FDCPA case alleging that discovery requests that failed to provide for electronic discovery and that required notarized responses violated Ohio procedural rules. [B]ald allegations of state procedural violations that did not result in any concrete harm are insufficient to confer standing. CA6: Soehnlen v. Fleet Owners Ins. Fund, 844 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2016). No injury in fact in ERISA case for bare violation of Affordable Care Act mandate to eliminate certain benefit caps, nor for payment of money into an allegedly non-compliant plan without showing concrete harm from the alleged noncompliance. CA5: Lee v. Verizon Commc ns, 837 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2016). Another ERISA case no injury in fact for violation of ERISA right to proper plan management based on alleged breach of fiduciary duty. 17

18 Post-Spokeo Circuit Court Decisions CA2: Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016). Alleged violations of Truth in Lending Act in connection with inadequate disclosures when opening a Victoria s Secret brand credit card account. No injury in fact for two of four claims (failure to inform customer about auto pay and billing error obligations, where no auto pay plan and no claim of billing error) Injury for other two claims (failure to inform customer about obligations pertaining to disputed credit card purchases) CA2: Ross v. AXA, --- F. App x ----, 2017 WL (2d Cir. 2017). No injury in fact for bare violations of NY Insurance Law sections prohibiting insurers from making misrepresentations, without any allegations of resulting harm. 18

19 Post-Spokeo Circuit Court Decisions Some Third Circuit decisions have reflected the most significant departure from current trend, at least in privacy context In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig., 827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2016) (unauthorized disclosure of minors Internet browsing patterns to third parties = intangible privacy injury) In re Horizon Healthcare Services Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017) (data breach resulting in disclosure of personal information to third parties = intangible privacy harm cognizable under FCRA) These decisions can be distinguished on factual basis 19

20 Post-Spokeo Circuit Court Decisions: Summary Spokeo s application to particular statutes defies easy characterization, though on the whole, Spokeo has bite: much harder than it was before for plaintiffs to bring no-injury class actions One disappointment has been TCPA litigation: a number of decisions holding that Congress made a judgment that any marketing call in violation of TCPA amounts to invasion of privacy, e.g., Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017); some lower courts say that there is standing even if call was never heard or answered (which in our view can t be right) At some point, standing issue likely to return to Supreme Court 20

21 CASE STUDY OF SPOKEO IN DISTRICT COURTS 21

22 Case Study in Spokeo s in Application in the District Courts: TCCWNA Class Actions New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Notice Warranty Act ( TCCWNA ), N.J.S.A. 56:12-4, et seq. Prohibits provisions in consumer agreements which violate the consumer s clearly established legal rights or fail to advise of a provision s enforceability in New Jersey. Allows aggrieved consumers to recover a civil penalty of $100 or more. Injury or damages are not required. 22

23 TCCWNA Class Actions First wave: actions against door-to-door sellers based upon form contracts. United Consumer Financial Services Co. v. Carbo, 410 N.J. Super. 291 (App. Div. 2009), awarding $100 to every class member on summary judgment ($1,685,000). Second wave: actions against brick-and-mortar retailers that use form contracts. Third wave: actions against online retailers, challenging provisions in website terms of use and privacy policies. 50-plus class actions filed in the District of New Jersey in 2016 alone. 23

24 Rulings Required to Address the Wave of TCCWNA Class Actions What does it mean for a consumer to be aggrieved within the meaning of the statute? What is a clearly established right? Is a class action an appropriate means of adjudicating TCCWNA claims? 24

25 Spokeo Dismissals of TCCWNA Class Actions Hecht v. Hertz Corp., 2016 WL (D.N.J. 2016) (no standing where complaint did not allege that any provision was actually unenforceable in New Jersey). Candelario v. RIP Curl, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2016) (rejecting theory of informational injury, where plaintiff did not allege he read the online terms of use). Robin v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 2017 WL (D.N.J. 2017) (no standing where plaintiff failed to allege she read online terms of use). Each action dismissed without prejudice. 25

26 Standing and Class Certification We now squarely hold that unnamed, putative class members need not establish Article III standing. Instead, the cases or controversies requirement is satisfied so long as a class representative has standing, whether in the context of a settlement or litigation class. - Neale v. Volvo Car s of North America, LLC, 794 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2015). But see Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006) ( no class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing. ); Avritt v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023 (8 th Cir. 2010) ( [a] class must therefore be defined in such a way that anyone within it would have standing. ) 26

27 Spokeo Moves the Battle to State Court Substantively, Defendant seeks to dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint based on statutory standing under the TCCWNA. In that respect, the parties argue whether Plaintiff is an aggrieved consumer within the definition of the Act, which dispute raises substantially similar issues as those raised under Article III standing. However, because Plaintiff lacks constitutional standing, which is a threshold question, I need not address Defendant s argument on statutory standing predicated on New Jersey law. Rubin v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 2017 WL (D.N.J. 2017) 27

28 Defense Strategy: Withhold Spokeo Arguments Hite v. Lush Internet, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D.N.J. March 23, 2017) (defendant did not advance Spokeo standing argument, and solely relied on argument that plaintiff was not an aggrieved consumer because he had not been impacted by the challenged contractual language). 28

29 SPOKEO IN STATE COURT: IMPLICATIONS FOR REMOVAL AND CAFA JURISDICTION 29

30 Impact of Spokeo on Removal of No-Injury Class Actions By now, there should be little debate about the numerous problems with our current class action system One key reason for these problems is that most class actions are currently adjudicated in state courts, where there is often inadequate supervision over litigation procedures and proposed settlements. Senate Report No to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (Feb. 28, 2005). 30

31 Can You Remove to Federal Court and Move to Dismiss Under Spokeo? Schartel v. One Source Technology, LLC, 2016 WL (N.D. Ohio Oct. 14, 2016). FCRA class action filed in state court, and then removed under CAFA. Stayed pending issuance of the Spokeo decision. District court refused to dismiss, and instead remanded because lack of Article III standing deprived federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Relied on 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), which requires remand in the event the Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 31

32 Remands of Removed Class Actions Due to Spokeo Hopkins v. Staffing Network Holdings, LLC, 2016 WL (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2016) ( Illinois doctrine of standing is the business of the [Illinois] courts. ). But see Tyus v. United States Postal Service, 2017 WL (E.D. Wisc. Jan. 4, 2017) (dismissing, rather than remanding, a no-injury class action where standing did not exist under Spokeo, because this action against a federal agency had been removed under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1)). 32

33 Sanctions For Removal and a Motion to Dismiss Under Spokeo? Mocek v. Allsaints USA Limited, 2016 WL (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2016) Defendant removed under CAFA, and then sought dismissal under Spokeo; plaintiff cross-moved to remand to state court. District court found defendant s positions on removal and standing to be incompatible, as a Spokeo argument means the defendant contends there is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Ordering defendant to pay $58, for improvidently removing the action. 33

34 Cases Dismissing, Rather Than Remanding, Federal Claims Under Spokeo Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities Foundation, Inc. v. Russell Enterprises, Inc., 2016 WL (D. Ariz. Dec. 12, 2016) Timothy Woods v. Caremark, L.L.C., 2016 WL (W.D. Mo. July 28, 2016) St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., 2017 WL (E.D. Mo. March 20, 2017) 34

35 Will Spokeo Have Legs In State Court? Examples of state standing doctrines: Michigan rejects federal standing principles in favor of a more liberal policy. Lansing Sch. Educ. Ass n. v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 792 N.W. 2d 686, 699 (Mich. 2010). Wisconsin construes standing liberally, and even an injury to a trifling interest may suffice. McConkey v. Van Hulen, 783 N.W. 2d 855, 860 (Wis. 2010). California links its standing analysis to the intent of the underlying statute. Midpeninsula Citizens v. Westwood Inus., 271 Cal Rptr. 99,104 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). Standing analysis in state court likely conflates with interpretation of the underlying statutory violation and right of action. Is the plaintiff the aggrieved consumer under TCCWNA? 35

36 Summary Of Implications 1. Spokeo is an effective tool to achieve dismissals (without prejudice) of no-injury class actions pending in federal court. 2. Defendants wishing to preserve a federal forum may withhold Spokeo arguments, although federal courts may decide the issue sua sponte. 3. State court actions cannot be removed if Spokeo applies. 4. Spokeo may undo CAFA for no-injury class actions, and prevent removal of federal question class actions. 36

37 QUESTIONS? 37

Litigating Statutory Damages Class Actions After Spokeo

Litigating Statutory Damages Class Actions After Spokeo Bryan A. Merryman White & Case LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433 (213) 620-780 bmerryman@whitecase.com Bryan A.