Class Action

Maynard Nexsen knows how damaging a class action lawsuit can be to a company, and our attorneys work to both defeat the class certification and win summary judgment as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, should that strategy not work for the specific facts of the lawsuit, we work with our clients to mitigate damages and minimize liability and expense.

Our class action litigators regularly act as national and local counsel in class actions in both state and federal court. Our experienced attorneys defend clients in every facet of class action proceedings, including class certification, motions to dismiss, summary judgment, standing issues, unfair trade practice act issues, remedial action issues, trials, opt-out and objector issues, and all facets of parallel administrative proceedings, related criminal proceedings and derivative actions.

The attorneys in Maynard Nexsen’s Class Action Litigation Group have successfully defended hundreds of class actions across the country in both federal and state court. Our attorneys have litigated a wide variety of class actions, including the following:

• Airlines
• Antitrust
• Consumer Finance
• Education
• Environmental Torts
• Insurance
• Labor
• Products Liability
• RICO
• Telecommunications

Maynard Nexsen has prevailed in a significant number of these class action cases by aggressively filing motions to deny class certification or motions to strike the class action allegations after a class action complaint is filed, or by defeating motions for class certification. Our attorneys also have successfully defended class actions by filing motions to dismiss on the merits or by obtaining summary judgment. Our attorneys have been responsible for obtaining favorable decisions from state, federal district and circuit courts on class certification and merits issues. The Firm has also been involved in settling class actions both before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Amchem Products v. Windsor. We are well-versed in all areas of the class action practice under both the Federal and State version of Rule 23.

Maynard Nexsen’s Approach to Class Action Litigation

A class action suit is often part of a concerted litigation attack against a company. Maynard Nexsen works with its clients to develop the appropriate approach to a class action suit that is consistent with the client’s goals. At times, a client may want to defeat class certification and defeat the claims of the individual plaintiffs. At other times, a client may want to use a class action settlement as a vehicle to resolve certain claims. Rather than pursuing a single, uniform approach in connection with the defense of all class actions, our attorneys work closely with clients to develop a creative strategy for handling class action litigation.

Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”)

The defense of every class action filed in state court begins with an analysis of whether such action can and should be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Our attorneys have successfully removed numerous state court class actions to federal court under CAFA. We have been on the cutting edge with arguments defeating motions to remand based on the local controversy and home state exceptions.

Representative Matters

• Representing Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama in consolidated class actions against all Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, which is the second largest class action in federal history, judged by class size, and the largest antitrust class action ever: In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, 2:13–CV–20000–RDP (N.D. Ala.)
• Serving as lead counsel to the target defendant in a putative nationwide class action alleging breach of warranty and negligence in connection with the production of manufactured homes that contain certain alleged structural defects: BMTP v. Southern Energy Homes, No. 2:19-CV-177-RDP (N.D. Ala.)

Dismissal of Case or Class Action Allegations at Pre-certification Stage

• Granting judgment on the pleadings dismissing unfair-competition and declaratory-judgment claims and motion to dismiss amended unfair-competition claim in putative class action alleging violations of California statutes when terminating life-insurance policies for non-payment of premium: Grundstrom v. Wilco Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03445-MMC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69944, 2022 BL 131735 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2022); Grundstrom v. Wilco Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03445-MMC, 2022 WL 2390992 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2022).
• Granting motion to dismiss putative class action of visually-impaired students alleging website was inaccessible and unlawful under the ADA: Gomez v. Miami International University of Art & Design, Inc., 2022 WL 1773883 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2022)
• Granting in part motion to dismiss consolidated class action complaint in MDL proceeding arising from a healthcare data breach implicating 1.3 million patients: In re: Mednax Services, Inc. Custom Data Security Breach Litigation, 2022 WL 1468057, ___ F.Supp. 3d ___ (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2022)
• Reversing district court and granting motion to strike class-action allegations in putative class action alleging securities fraud: Donelson v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc., 999 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2021)
• Granting motion to dismiss putative class action alleging denial of coverage violating federal and state law: M.F. v. Magellan Healthcare, Inc., 2021 WL 1121042 (N.D. Ill. March 24, 2021)
• Granting judgment on the pleadings that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify policyholder in putative class action for alleged violation of Driver’s Privacy Protection Act: Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gelshenen, 387 F. Supp. 3d 634 (W.D.N.C. 2019), aff’d sub nom. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davis & Gelshenen, LLP, 801 F. App’x 915 (4th Cir. 2020)
• Granting motions to dismiss in nationwide COVID-19 related Business Interruption insurance coverage class actions filed in various states across the country seeking (1) certification of multiple classes of business owners arising out of business interruption and civil authority insurance coverage disputes and (2) damages for breach of contract and bad faith claims handling: Roy H. Johnson, DDS and Windy Hill Dentistry, LLC v Hartford Financial Services Group, et al., No. 1:20‐CV‐02000‐SDG (N.D. Ga. 2020); Karmel Davis and Assocs., LLC v. Hartford Financial Services Group, et al., No. 1:20‐CV‐02181‐WMR (N.D. Ga. 2020); Pure Fitness, LLC v. Hartford Financial Services Group, et al., No.2:20‐CV‐00775‐JHE (N.D. Ala. 2020)
• Granting in part partial motion to dismiss a putative nationwide class action alleging breach of contract relating to Cost of Insurance charges for universal life insurance policies: Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Protective Life Insurance Company, 2020 WL 2198955 (N.D. Ala. May 6, 2020)
• Granting motion to dismiss with prejudice putative class action by residents of a manufactured housing community alleging six statutory and common law claims based on various state laws and the governing contract relating to water usage by the resident: Alenci v. Hometown America Management, LLC, 2020 WL 2515872 (D. Mass. May 15, 2020)
• Granting motion to dismiss putative class action alleging violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when processing plaintiff’s loan application: Trites v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 2020 WL 1531773 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2020)
• Granting motion to dismiss putative nationwide class action as to plaintiffs’ negligence claims and as to Louisiana plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claims: BMTP, LLC v. RBH, Inc., 2020 WL 6875827 (N.D. Ala. March 5, 2020)
• Granting motion to dismiss putative class action alleging that defendants improperly charged United Airline pilots “smoker” premium rates on variable universal life insurance policies, despite the pilots not using tobacco: Miller v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4450637 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2019), aff’d 979 F.3d, 118 (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2020)
• Obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice after conducting limited discovery in putative multi-state class action alleging violation of insurance policy by depreciating the replacement cost value for labor costs associated with repairs to dwellings: Lovelace v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-150-JM (E. D. Ark. 2019)
• Granting motion to dismiss on SLUSA grounds in putative class action alleging failure to include certain notices to senior citizens on the cover page of variable annuities in violation of California statutes: Davis v. RiverSource Life Ins. Co., No. 4:16-CV-02801-JSW (N.D. Cal. 2018)
• Granting motion to dismiss in separately filed class actions after successfully removing cases to federal court and convincing plaintiff’s counsel the court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant: MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Ameriprise Ins. Co., No. 1:17‐CV‐24033 & 1:17‐CV‐23980 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
• Granting motion to dismiss putative class action alleging improper reduction of settlement offers by taking into account prior MedPay benefits: Archuleta v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3157947 (D. Colo. July 25, 2017) aff’d 896 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2018)

Compelling Arbitration

Maynard Cooper has successfully defeated class actions by compelling arbitration against named plaintiffs before the class certification stage, including the following cases:

• Reversing district court and granting motion to compel arbitration as to named plaintiffs in putative class action alleging securities fraud: Donelson v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc., 999 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2021)
• Granting motion to compel arbitration as to named plaintiff in putative class action alleging breach of contract and tort claims: Garcia v. Willis Stein & Partners, LLC, et al., 2019 WL 13149917 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2019)
• Granting motion to compel arbitration as to named plaintiff in putative class action alleging RICO and common law claims and rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to class action waiver provision: Lee v. Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., 2015 WL 4619806 (N.D. Ala. July 31, 2015)
• Granting motion to compel arbitration as to individual claims of named plaintiffs in putative class action alleging fraud and violations of state law: Hafer v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc., 793 F.Supp.2d 987 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2011)

Denial of Class Certification

• Denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in action challenging the rent structures in two manufactured home communities: Bartok v. Hometown America, LLC, No. 21-CV-10790-LTS (D. Mass. March 30, 2022)
• Denying class certification and granting motion to dismiss in putative class action alleging systematic denial or reduction of insurance coverage: Crosby v. California Physicians’ Service, et al., 2020 WL 6535790 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2020)
• Retained after trial court granted class certification. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed certification, holding that (1) plaintiff lacked standing at the inception of the case due to faulty assignments and (2) plaintiff failed to establish that common issues predominate over individual issues based on the inherently unique nature of claims under Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law: IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company v. MSPA Claims 1, LLC, 263 So.3d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA. May 23, 2017)

Class Action Settlements

• Favorable settlement of class action alleging state law claims involving stormwater management and damage issues in manufactured home community: Craw v. Hometown America, LLC, No. 18-12149-LTS (D. Mass. Sept. 23, 2021)
• Favorable settlement of putative nationwide class action after filing a motion to compel individual arbitration and strike class allegations: Joanne Bustillos v. Randall-Reilly, LLC, No. 7:21-CV-00900-LSC (N.D. Ala. July 1, 2021)
• Favorable settlement of consolidated class action proceedings brought pursuant to federal antitrust laws: In re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings Direct Purchaser and Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-CV-711 (AET)(LHG), 2018 WL 2722457 (D.N.J. 2018)
• Favorable settlement of class action alleging improper denial of policyholders’ waiver of life insurance premium claims: Laster v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., No. 2:17-CV-00851-ABJEM (C.D. Cal. 2017)

Enforcement of Class Action Judgments

• Successfully defended, by court appointment, judgment of the district court declining to certify class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Landeros v. Pinnacle Recovery, Inc., 692 F. App’x 608 (11th Cir. 2017)

Other Class Action Matters

• Defeating motion to remand in putative class action under “local controversy” and “local single event” exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction: Racca v. EFG General Partner Corp., et al., 2022 WL 2764735 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2022)
• Granting motion to stay discovery pending the court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint arising from a healthcare data breach implicating 1.3 million patient: In re: Mednax Services, Inc. Custom Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 21-md-02994 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2021)
• Court of appeals held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to strike plaintiff’s nationwide class action allegations in putative class action against financial services company and its employees for their alleged securities fraud: Donelson v. Amerprise Fin. Serv., Inc., 999 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2021)
• Granting both motion to stay discovery and motion to transfer venue in putative class action alleging violations of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by online test proctoring corporation: Thakkar v. ProctorU, Inc., 2021 WL 2589019 (C.D. Ill. May 24, 2021); 2021 WL 5507041 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021)
• Granting motion to transfer venue in putative class action alleging a home manufacturer violated state and federal laws regarding alleged manufacturing defects: BMTP, LLC v. RBH, Inc., 2019 WL 407409 (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2019)
• Granting summary judgment in putative class action that college misrepresented its approval status with state nursing board: Adams v. Antonelli College, 304 F.Supp.3d 656 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Insights