Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Fourth Circuit Rockets Certified Class Due to Lack of Article III Standing

In a 2-1 recent published decision, the Fourth Circuit decertified a class, holding that every class member must be concretely harmed by an alleged statutory violation under the Supreme Court’s seminal holding on Article III standing in TransUnion v. Ramirez. Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC involved statutory and common law claims under West Virginia law by a proposed class of consumers against Quicken Loans, Inc. (now Rocket Mortgage, LLC), alleging that, in refinancing their home-mortgage loans, the consumers paid for “independent appraisals” that were not “independent” at all. In fact, the defendants provided to the appraisers the homeowners’ own estimates of their homes’ values, which they had provided in their loan application. The plaintiffs claimed that the inclusion of the borrowers’ own estimates inflated the appraisals and so compromised the integrity of the appraisal process as to render their appraisals unreliable and worthless. The District Court certified a class of “‘[a]ll West Virginia citizens who refinanced mortgage loans with Quicken, and for whom Quicken obtained appraisals through an appraisal request form that included an estimate of value of the subject property,’” which amounted to 2,769 loans. The court then granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and class members and awarded them more than $10.6 million in statutory damages, among other relief. On the first appeal, the...

Dog Doesn’t Hunt: After Plaintiff Drops Federal Claim, U.S. Supreme Court Says Dog Food Case Must Be Remanded to State Court

The United States Supreme Court clarified this month in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger that when a plaintiff amends her complaint, following removal from state to federal court, to “cut[] out all her federal-law claims, federal-question jurisdiction dissolves” and the case must be remanded “to the state court where it started.” In Royal Canin, Anastasia Wullschleger purchased “a brand of dog food available only with a veterinarian’s prescription” and “sold at a premium price,” thinking that the dog food “contained medication not found in off-the-shelf products.” When Ms. Wullschleger learned that, despite its trappings, the dog food was just “ordinary dog food,” she brought suit in Missouri state court, filing a complaint that included asserted violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as well as factually intertwined state-law claims. The defendant dog food company removed Ms. Wullschleger’s complaint from state to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction resulting from the FDCA. In response, Ms. Wullschleger amended her complaint to remove any reference to the FDCA, and she asked the federal court to remand the case back to state court, arguing that there was no longer federal jurisdiction over the “amended, all-state-law complaint.” The district court denied Ms. Wullschleger’s petition. It reasoned that federal jurisdiction could not be unilaterally eliminated by a plaintiff’s...

The End of a New ADR Era? Ninth Circuit Affirms Finding of Mass Arbitration Rules as Unenforceable

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s ruling denying a motion by Live Nation and Ticketmaster to compel arbitration of claims by ticket purchasers, finding that the arbitration agreement contained in Ticketmaster’s website Terms of Use was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable under California law. Notably, the arbitration clause required arbitration with a digital arbitration vendor (New Era ADR) under New Era’s rules for Expedited/Mass Arbitrations. Mass arbitration, a developing dispute resolution system, involves a large group of demands filed on behalf of or against a common party, out of which one plaintiff may be chosen to represent the larger group of plaintiffs, otherwise known as a “bellwether plaintiff.” The plaintiffs in Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. filed a putative class action alleging that the defendants engaged in predatory ticket pricing. In response, the defendants sought to enforce Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use, which required the dispute to be resolved through arbitration. These Terms specifically provided that claims stemming from current or prior online ticket purchases be decided by an arbitrator employed by New Era, who, under its delegation clause, also had the authority to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration. In affirming the district court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the lack...

“We’re from Jersey, Baby!” Governor Murphy Delivers the 2025 State of the State Address

Yesterday afternoon, Governor Phil Murphy delivered his seventh State of the State address at a joint session of the New Jersey Legislature. This address re-invoked the “stronger and fairer” New Jersey theme that marked Governor Murphy’s first term, imbued with the subtext of innovation. During the address, the Governor looked back at some of the events that have occurred while he has been in office, including a global pandemic, record high inflation, and the outbreak of two international conflicts. He also highlighted the State’s accomplishments as the “medicine chest to the world,” its growing entertainment and film industry, and its winning bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup Final. In all, Governor Murphy presented a broad scope of issues his administration seeks to work on during his final year in office. Those priorities include affordability and economic opportunity; childcare and education; healthcare and reproductive rights; transportation and infrastructure; the environment; the protection of fundamental rights; and criminal justice reform. Affordability and Economic Opportunity The Governor acknowledged the rising cost of living and efforts to make New Jersey more affordable. He highlighted programs such as ANCHOR (geared toward property tax relief) and RetireReady NJ (a publicly run retirement savings program), as well as a higher minimum wage rate that has nearly doubled since he took...

New Jersey Just Increased Its Campaign Contribution Limits for 2025

The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC) announced that effective January 1, 2025, campaign contribution limits will increase for all non-gubernatorial candidate committees, political committees, continuing political committees, legislative leadership committees, and political party committees. The Elections Transparency Act (P.L. 2023, c. 30), signed into law in April 2023, requires NJELEC to adjust for inflation the contribution limits for non-gubernatorial candidates and committees every two years. The following chart provided by NJELEC shows the new contribution limits that are now in effect. This is the first time that NJELEC has adjusted for inflation non-gubernatorial candidates and committees. Contribution limits for gubernatorial elections, along with thresholds related to the Gubernatorial Public Financing Program, have been subject to inflation adjustment every four years since 1992.

Third Circuit Concludes a Job Applicant Cannot File a Discrimination Claim Under New Jersey’s Cannabis Law

In a 2-1 split decision issued on December 9, 2024, the Third Circuit held that employees do not have a private right of action under New Jersey’s Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), marking the first time a court has analyzed the statute’s employment protections since its passage nearly four years ago. Statutory Background In February 2021, New Jersey enacted CREAMMA, a voluminous law regulating the legal manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of cannabis throughout the state. Among the sea of statutory provisions, CREAMMA prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action against: (1) a prospective or current employee based on the use or non-use of cannabis; or (2) a current employee based solely on a positive cannabis drug test. Yet, the law does not provide an express enforcement mechanism against employers who violate these provisions. In September 2022, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (“the Commission”) issued some guidance to employers grappling with the implementation of CREAMMA’s anti-discrimination provisions. However, the guidance provided little in the way of practical information for employers struggling to implement CREAMMA in the workplace. The Third Circuit’s Decision in Zanetich In Zanetich v. Wal-Mart Stores E., Inc., No. 23-1996, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31051 (3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2024), the plaintiff filed a two-count...

Third Circuit Upholds Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Seeking $65 Million in Drug Rebates

On September 25, 2024, in a precedential opinion, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”), because the plaintiffs failed to allege the financial harm necessary to establish Article III standing. In Knudsen v. MetLife Grp., Inc., the plaintiffs, former employees of defendant MetLife Group (“MetLife”), alleged they were forced to pay higher health insurance premiums because MetLife retained $65 million in drug rebates. The savings from those rebates, according to the plaintiffs, should have been directed to the MetLife-sponsored benefits plan (the “MetLife Plan”).  Had they been, the plaintiffs, along with a proposed class of participants and beneficiaries of the MetLife Plan, would have benefited through: (1) reducing their “ongoing contributions on account of the rebates collected by the [MetLife] Plan[;]” (2) realizing savings in their “co-pays and co-insurance for pharmaceutical benefits[;]” and (3) obtaining drug rebates “in proportion to [participants’] contributions to the [MetLife] Plan.” In July 2023, the district court granted MetLife’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), holding that the plaintiffs failed to show they were owed the drug rebates. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not establish a “concrete stake in the outcome of this lawsuit and have not pled facts...

N.J. Appellate Division Decision Underscores Need for a Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes

On November 14, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision in Beazer East, Inc. v. Morris Kearny Associates Urban Renewal, LLC, reversing the lower court which had ordered Defendant Morris Kearny Associates Urban Renewal, LLC (“Morris”) to give access to its site in Kearny (“Site”) to Plaintiff Beazer East Inc. (“Beazer”) in order for Beazer to remediate contaminated groundwater at the Site pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.1 to -23.24, and the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-1 to -31. Beazer had sought access to a portion of the Site to install two groundwater-monitoring wells.  Morris denied the request, claiming that Beazer’s installation of the wells would interfere with Morris’ contractual obligation to construct site improvements and warehouses on its property in furtherance of a commercial redevelopment project.  After subsequent negotiations to obtain access were unsuccessful, Beazer filed a summary action seeking access to the Site under the New Jersey Access Statute, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-16, which allows a remediating party to obtain a court order on an expedited basis permitting “reasonable access” to a property if “after good faith efforts, the person undertaking the remediation and the property owner fail to reach an agreement concerning access.” N.J.S.A. 58:10B-16(a)(1). In support of its order to show cause seeking...

Two Major Updates for New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage License Holders on Outdoor Dining Rules and New Mandatory Signage for Businesses

Just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday, New Jersey has taken action on two items that impact the operations of alcoholic beverage licensees. The first action codifies the COVID-era outdoor dining and beverage service rules in statute, while the second requires certain alcoholic beverage licensees to post signs that bring awareness to the risks of human trafficking. Renewal of Outdoor Dining and Beverage Service Permits Governor Murphy signed S3608/A4866 into law on November 25, 2024, making permanent the COVID-era outdoor dining permissions for restaurants and certain alcoholic beverage retailers and manufacturers. Under the new law, the holder of a temporary expansion permit issued by the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (the “Division”) may have its temporary permit converted to an annual permit, which is renewable with the approval of local officials. Owners and operators of these businesses are permitted to use certain outdoor spaces as an extension of their business premises for the purpose of conducting sales of food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages if licensed. This includes the continued use of fixtures such as covered and uncovered patios and decks, tents, canopies, umbrellas, tables, and chairs for outdoor dining. The enactment of S3608/A-4866 brings to a close four years of temporary outdoor dining rules. Governor Murphy originally signed legislation to expand outdoor dining...

Massachusetts Supreme Court Takes a Closer Look at Wiretap Laws, Potentially Narrowing Privacy Actions

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently issued an important ruling in Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital et al., addressing whether tracking a user’s activities on a website and sharing that data with third parties constitutes intercepting communications in violation of the state’s 1968 Wiretap Act (the “Act”). In dismissing the plaintiff’s statutory claims, the court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the legislature – and not the court – to address gaps in statutory protections related to privacy and modern tracking technologies, highlighting that as technology and any corresponding digital privacy concerns evolve, legislative frameworks must be modified to adapt accordingly. Plaintiff Kathleen Vita claimed that New England Baptist Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center violated the Act by “intercepting” communications without her consent or knowledge through the use of tracking tools on their websites. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the hospitals used third-party software to record her activity when she browsed the hospitals’ websites to obtain information about doctors, search for information about medical symptoms and other healthcare-related issues, and obtain and review medical records. The plaintiff alleged that the hospitals then shared this data with third parties that processed the data for targeted advertising campaigns tailored to the individual user’s data. The court concluded that although the web tracking practices raised...