Supreme Court

  • January 11, 2024

Supreme Court Dismisses ADA Website Accessibility Class Action for Mootness, Vacates First Circuit Decision

Appeals, Class Action Litigation, Class Actions, Consumer Class Actions, First Circuit Decisions, Jurisdiction, Litigation, Standing, Supreme Court, US District Court - Maine
Authors:
Practice area:

At the close of 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of petitioner Acheson in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer as moot and vacated the underlying decision by the First Circuit that Laufer had constitutional standing to bring her ADA claims. The decision came as no surprise following the Justices’ sharp focus on mootness during oral argument in October. Our earlier posts provide coverage of that oral argument and the petition for appeal. At the time of oral argument, it was uncertain whether the Court would rest its decision concerning jurisdiction on mootness or standing. That question has now been resolved.

Laufer’s Unusual Controversy and Procedural History

The Court’s decision rested on the unique procedural posture of the case. Acheson filed its appeal following the First Circuit’s decision that Laufer demonstrated sufficient injury to have Article III standing to pursue her ADA claims against a hotel with alleged accessibility

Continue Reading...
  • October 05, 2023

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Article III Standing of Testers to Bring ADA Website Accessibility Class Actions

Class Action Litigation, First Circuit Decisions, Jurisdiction, Standing, Supreme Court
Authors:
Practice area:

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, a case that we have summarized in prior blog posts.  Just months ago, there was doubt whether the Supreme Court would hear the case at all. While the Court granted Acheson Hotels’ petition for a writ of certiorari in March 2023, Laufer urged the Court to dismiss the case for mootness in July 2023 following the voluntary dismissal of her claims. Acheson Hotels opposed dismissal and urged the Court to hear its challenge to Laufer’s constitutional standing. The Supreme Court, in an unsigned, two-sentence order dated August 10, 2023, denied the request to dismiss the case as moot and stated it would consider mootness at oral argument in addition to the question presented. The parties and other interested non-parties briefed the matter, and the solicitor general was granted permission to participate in oral argument.

Continue Reading...
  • June 29, 2023

Staying Put: Supreme Court Holds that District Courts Must Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration Appeals

Appeals, Arbitration, Class Action Litigation, Class Actions, Class Arbitration, Litigation, Supreme Court
Authors:
Practice area:

On June 23, 2023, in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, the Supreme Court resolved a deeply divided circuit court split and ruled that a district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, with Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett joining the majority. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined in full, and in which Justice Thomas joined in part. The 5-4 decision has far-reaching implications for class action strategy and practice when arbitration provisions are at issue.

The Underlying Dispute Concerning Whether Proceedings Must Be Stayed Pending Arbitration Appeals

In the underlying case, Coinbase filed a motion to compel arbitration based on its user agreement following the filing of a putative class action on behalf of Coinbase users who alleged the company failed to replace funds fraudulently taken from user accounts. The district court

Continue Reading...
  • May 18, 2023

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Appeal from First Circuit of Website Accessibility Tester Case

Appeals, Class Action Litigation, Class Actions, Consumer Class Actions, First Circuit Decisions, Litigation, Standing, Supreme Court, US District Court - Maine
Authors:
Practice area:

On March 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari by Acheson Hotels in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Deborah Laufer, Case No. 21-1410. In its petition to appeal from an earlier First Circuit decision analyzed in a prior post,  Acheson Hotels asks the Supreme Court to resolve the following question:

Does a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” have Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation?

In support of its petition, Acheson Hotels argued that the question was ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court based on the distinct divide among the circuit courts on the question presented and the errors it claims plagued the First Circuit’s decision.

The First Circuit’s Decision on Laufer’s Standing to Bring her Claim

In

Continue Reading...
  • October 27, 2022

First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Website Tester Has Standing for ‘Informational Injury’, Deepens Circuit Divide

Appeals, Class Actions, Consumer Class Actions, Employment Class Actions, Fair Credit Reporting Act, First Circuit Decisions, Jurisdiction, Litigation, Standing, Supreme Court, US District Court - Maine
Authors:

On October 5, 2022, in Laufer v. Acheson Hotels LLC, the U.S Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a suit against Acheson Hotels, LLC, which operates an inn on Maine’s southern coast. With this reversal, the First Circuit has addressed a matter of first impression and deepened a circuit split on when, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), a plaintiff can sustain a suit based on an informational injury. In TransUnion, the Supreme Court distilled its precedent on constitutional standing into five words: “No concrete harm, no standing.” In this recent decision, the First Circuit determined the plaintiff had established both.

The Lower Court Dismissal for Lack of Standing

In her complaint, Deborah Laufer alleges that when she visited the inn’s website, it didn’t identify accessible rooms, provide an option for

Continue Reading...
  • June 28, 2021

Supreme Court Addresses Concrete Harm, Limits Standing in FCRA Class Action

Appeals, Class Actions, Consumer Class Actions, Privacy Class Actions, Standing, Supreme Court
Authors:

On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated 5-4 ruling in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. In a 27-page decision by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the certification of a class of 8,185 consumers whom the credit reporting agency TransUnion had  mistakenly labeled as potential terrorists and drug traffickers. Of this consumer class, only 1,853 class members’ misleading credit reports had been provided to third-parties. The District Court had ruled that all class members had Article III standing to pursue their Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims against TransUnion to recover statutory damages. A federal jury awarded the class $8.1 million in statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages. On appeal, TransUnion challenged the award on the basis that the entire class lacked constitutional standing to recover. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part.

The Court’s Decision

Taking up the question, the Court clarified its prior holdings concerning the

Continue Reading...
  • June 20, 2019

Class Action Update from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 Term

Antitrust Class Actions, Appeals, Arbitration, Class Action Fairness Act, Class Arbitration, Class Certifications, Consumer Class Actions, Privacy Class Actions, Securities Class Actions, Supreme Court
Authors:
Practice area:

The 2018-2019 term of the U.S. Supreme Court opened with a newly configured court in which Justice Kavanaugh joined as an Associate Justice following the retirement of Justice Kennedy. Since October of last year, the Court has heard 69 argued appeals, several of which arose from class action litigation. Over the past nine months, the Court has addressed issues relating to class action practice concerning arbitration provisions, federal removal statutes, consumer antitrust law, FDA preemption, and the equitable tolling of interlocutory appeals. Although presented with class action questions related to cy pres awards, data privacy litigation standing, issue class certification, securities laws, and TCPA claims, the Court declined to resolve these issues. Reflective of the Court’s decisions this term at large, rulings were unanimous or sharply divided along ideological lines, with the Court declining to hear a number of controversies. The below summary provides an overview of class action decisions by the Court this term, including recent remands and certiorari decisions.

Continue Reading...
  • April 24, 2019

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela: Class Arbitration Must Be Expressly Authorized

Class Arbitration, Supreme Court
Authors:
Practice area:

Class arbitration came back before the Supreme Court this term in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela.  Today, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Lamps Plus, holding that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, “courts may not infer from an ambiguous agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide basis.”  Rather, class arbitration must be expressly authorized by contract.

The facts of Lamps Plus are straightforward.  An employee had signed an arbitration agreement upon being hired to work for Lamps Plus.  After a data breach, the employee sued Lamps Plus in federal court.  Lamps Plus filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, and the district court granted the motion to compel but authorized arbitration on a class basis.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the arbitration provision was ambiguous as to class arbitration and must be construed against the employer under California’s contra proferentem rule that ambiguities in a contract must be

Continue Reading...
  • March 20, 2019

Questions Regarding Cy Pres Settlements Remain after Frank v. Gaos

Class Action Settlements, Supreme Court
Authors:
Practice area:

Today, in a case that was being watched closely for its potential ramifications for class settlements, the Supreme Court opted not to address the merits of the cy pres issues that were presented to it.  Frank v. Gaos involved a settlement that would have distributed millions of dollars to cy pres recipients and class counsel, but no money to class members.  Objectors complained that the settlement did not comply with the requirement that class settlements be “fair, reasonable and adequate,” and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve that issue.  It ultimately did not.

Instead, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, vacated and remanded for the lower courts to address whether the named plaintiff had Article III standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.  After the district court rejected the argument the plaintiff lacked injury and thus standing to pursue its claim that Google violated federal law by

Continue Reading...
  • February 27, 2019

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Equitable Tolling of Rule 23(f)’s Time Limit to Petition for Interlocutory Appeal

Appeals, Supreme Court
Authors:
Practice area:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert unanimously held that Rule 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling. After the District Court for the Central District of California decertified a class of consumers who alleged that Nutraceutical’s marketing of a dietary supplement violated California consumer-protection law, plaintiff Lambert filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court subsequently denied. Fourteen days later, Lambert petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the decertification order under Rule 23(f). Nutraceutical opposed Lambert’s petition, arguing that it was untimely because more than four months had passed since the court’s decertification order. The Court of Appeals, however, deemed the petition timely and accepted the appeal, stating that the Rule 23(f) fourteen-day deadline should be equitably tolled under the circumstances as the time limit is “non-jurisdictional, and that equitable remedies softening the deadline are therefore generally available,” and Lambert had acted diligently in moving for reconsideration and subsequently filing his petition within fourteen days after

Continue Reading...