Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Edward and Linda Diaz purchased a motorhome from a California dealer, receiving warranties from the manufacturer that included a clause requiring any legal disputes related to the warranties to be litigated exclusively in Indiana, where the motorhome was manufactured. The warranties also contained a choice-of-law provision favoring Indiana law and a waiver of jury trial. After experiencing issues with the vehicle that were not remedied under warranty, the Diazes sued the manufacturer, dealer, and lender in California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging failure to repair defects and refusal to replace or refund the vehicle.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants’ motion to stay the California action, enforcing the forum selection clause. The manufacturer had offered to stipulate that it would not oppose application of California’s Song-Beverly Act or a jury trial if the Diazes pursued their claims in Indiana. The court ordered the manufacturer to sign such a stipulation, holding that the Diazes could seek to lift the stay if Indiana courts declined to apply California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, concluded that the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The court held that the warranty’s terms, including the forum selection and choice-of-law provisions, violated California public policy by purporting to waive unwaivable statutory rights under the Song-Beverly Act. The court determined that the manufacturer’s post hoc offer to stipulate to California law did not cure the unconscionability present at contract formation and that severance of the unlawful terms would not further the interests of justice. As a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order staying the California action and directed entry of a new order denying the stay. View "Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc." on Justia Law

ARcare, Inc., a nonprofit community health center receiving federal funding, suffered a data breach in early 2022 when an unauthorized third party accessed confidential patient information, including names, social security numbers, and medical treatment details. After ARcare notified affected individuals, several patients filed lawsuits alleging that ARcare failed to adequately safeguard their information as required under federal law. Plaintiffs reported fraudulent invoices and that their information was found for sale on the dark web.The actions were removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, where six class actions were consolidated. ARcare sought to invoke absolute immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) of the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA), which provides immunity for damages resulting from the performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.” ARcare moved to substitute the United States as defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing the data breach arose from a “related function.” The district court denied the motion, finding that protecting patient information from cyberattacks was not sufficiently linked to the provision of health care to qualify as a “related function” under the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the statutory immunity issue de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of immunity, holding that the FSHCAA’s language does not extend statutory immunity to claims arising from a health center’s data security practices. The court reasoned that “related functions” must be activities closely connected to the provision of health care, and data security is not such a function. Therefore, ARcare is not entitled to substitute the United States as defendant, and the denial of statutory immunity was affirmed. View "Hale v. ARcare, Inc" on Justia Law

Two individuals each purchased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle that included a subscription-based system called “mbrace,” which provided various features through a 3G wireless network. When newer cellular technology rendered the 3G-dependent system obsolete, both customers asked their dealerships to replace the outdated system at no charge, but their requests were denied. Subsequently, they filed a class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG, asserting claims including breach of warranty under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, considered Mercedes’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, based on the arbitration provision within the mbrace Terms of Service. The district court found in favor of Mercedes, concluding that the plaintiffs were bound by an agreement to arbitrate their claims. Since neither party requested a stay, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they had not agreed to arbitrate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Applying Illinois contract law, the appellate court determined that Mercedes had provided sufficient notice of the arbitration agreement to the plaintiffs through the subscription activation process and follow-up communications. The court found that Mercedes established a rebuttable presumption of notice, which the plaintiffs failed to overcome, as they only stated they did not recall receiving such notice, rather than expressly denying it. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had assented to the agreement by subscribing to the service and thus were bound by the arbitration provision. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jim Rose v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute stems from a series of lawsuits initiated by a borrower after a nonjudicial foreclosure was attempted on a Maui property he purchased in 2003. Following his default on the mortgage in 2008, the property was sold in a nonjudicial foreclosure in 2010 and title transferred to a bank. The bank, through its attorneys, sought to evict the borrower and later filed a judicial foreclosure counterclaim after the borrower challenged the foreclosure's validity. The borrower remained in possession of the property throughout, and subsequent litigation centered on the conduct of both the lender and its attorneys.After an initial summary judgment against the borrower in his wrongful foreclosure suit, the Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the parties settled most claims except those against certain attorneys. Separately, the borrower filed new claims against the bank’s law firm and its attorneys, alleging fraud, unfair and deceptive acts, wrongful foreclosure, and other torts related to their legal filings and conduct during the foreclosure process. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the attorneys and declared the borrower a vexatious litigant due to a pattern of abusive litigation.On appeal, the ICA affirmed most of the circuit court’s rulings but reinstated the borrower’s claim alleging fraud on the court. The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i held that the ICA erred by reinstating this claim, reasoning that even if the borrower’s allegations were true, they did not meet the high threshold required for an independent action for fraud on the court. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of all claims against the attorneys and the vexatious litigant order, and vacated the ICA’s ruling to the extent it had revived the fraud on the court claim. View "Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company" on Justia Law

Two individuals were seriously injured during a 2022 mass shooting at the Edmund Burke School in Washington, D.C. The shooter, a 23-year-old man from Virginia, used an AR-15 and various accessories and ammunition manufactured by multiple U.S. and foreign companies. The shooter built his arsenal by purchasing and assembling these products, which were then used in the attack. Both plaintiffs, a parent picking up her child and a school security guard, survived but suffered severe physical and emotional injuries.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting claims under Virginia’s False Advertising Statute and Consumer Protection Act, and alleging negligence and negligence per se for violations of the National Firearms Act and Virginia’s Uniform Machine Gun Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their injuries were not “fairly traceable” to the defendants’ conduct. The district court agreed, dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Despite this, the court also reached the merits and dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding them barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s standing ruling, holding that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that their injuries were “fairly traceable” to the defendants’ alleged misconduct, thus satisfying Article III’s requirements. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s alternative merits ruling under the PLCAA as advisory and beyond its jurisdiction, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Lowy v. Daniel Defense, LLC" on Justia Law

A Texas nonprofit health center, CentroMed, experienced a data breach in 2024 that exposed the personal information of its patients. Arturo Gonzalez, representing himself and others affected, filed a class action in Bexar County, Texas, alleging that CentroMed failed to adequately protect their private information. CentroMed, which receives federal funding and has occasionally been deemed a Public Health Service (PHS) employee under federal law, sought to remove the case to federal court, claiming removal was proper under 42 U.S.C. § 233 and 28 U.S.C. § 1442.After CentroMed was served, it notified the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the United States Attorney, seeking confirmation that the data breach claims fell within the scope of PHS employee immunity. The United States Attorney appeared in state court within the required 15 days, ultimately informing the court that CentroMed was not deemed a PHS employee for the acts at issue because the claims did not arise from medical or related functions. Despite this, CentroMed removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas 37 days after service. The district court granted Gonzalez’s motion to remand, concluding that removal was improper under both statutes: the Attorney General had timely appeared, precluding removal under § 233, and removal under § 1442 was untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand. The Fifth Circuit held that CentroMed could not remove under § 233 because the Attorney General had timely appeared and made a case-specific negative determination. The court further held that removal under § 1442 was untimely, as CentroMed did not remove within 30 days of receiving the initial pleading. Thus, the remand to state court was affirmed. View "Gonzalez v. El Centro Del Barrio" on Justia Law

Two students enrolled at a private university in California during early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread campus closures. In accordance with local lockdown orders, the university transitioned from in-person to online instruction in March 2020. Prior to the Fall 2020 semester, the university communicated with students about its intention to return to in-person education but made clear that such plans depended on approval from local authorities. Ultimately, the university continued remote instruction. The students remained enrolled and later graduated.The students filed suit in the Superior Court of Orange County, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices. They argued that the university had made an enforceable promise to provide in-person education, citing various university publications, course listings, policies, and statements about on-campus experiences. They sought a partial tuition refund and raised alternative claims regarding unfair or unlawful representations. The university moved for summary judgment, asserting that it had not made any specific promise to provide in-person instruction and that its statements reflected only general expectations. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the university, relying on Berlanga v. University of San Francisco and finding no triable issue of material fact regarding any misrepresentation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the university’s statements and practices did not constitute sufficiently specific enforceable promises of in-person education under California law. The court found that only specific, explicit promises are enforceable in the student-university relationship, and none were present here. The court also rejected the students’ unjust enrichment and unfair business practices claims. The judgment in favor of the university was affirmed, and the university was awarded costs on appeal. View "Grant v. Chapman University" on Justia Law

The case concerns a job applicant who, after accepting an offer of employment as a sales associate at a large retailer, received an investigative consumer report as part of the onboarding process. The applicant was presented with a lengthy disclosure form that identified multiple consumer reporting agencies rather than only the one that provided her report. She alleged that the employer failed to comply with specific requirements under California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), including not identifying the agency actually conducting the investigation in a standalone document, and including extraneous information. She also claimed other technical violations related to the handling of her report.The Superior Court of San Diego County reviewed the matter after the employee brought suit for ICRAA violations. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not suffer any concrete injury or adverse employment action resulting from the alleged violations—she was hired and received the report. The trial court agreed, finding that the applicant had not shown injury, and entered judgment for the employer.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that under the plain language of ICRAA, a consumer need only show that a statutory violation occurred to have standing and to recover the statutory sum of $10,000; no further showing of injury or harm is required. The court distinguished California law from federal standards, emphasized relevant legislative history, and declined to follow interpretations requiring proof of concrete injury. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed that summary judgment be vacated. View "Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates" on Justia Law

The plaintiff leased and later purchased a 2013 vehicle from the defendant, which subsequently developed engine problems. After experiencing issues like rattling and crunching noises and receiving a safety recall notice, the plaintiff sought repairs and eventually requested that the defendant repurchase the car due to unresolved defects. The defendant did not respond to these repurchase requests.The plaintiff sued for violations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of warranties, fraud by omission, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The Superior Court of San Diego County sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the CLRA claim without leave to amend, citing the plaintiff’s failure to file a required venue affidavit with the complaint. During discovery, the defendant repeatedly objected to producing documents related to engine defects and verified, under penalty of perjury, that no responsive documents existed. The plaintiff challenged the adequacy of the defendant’s document search and later discovered evidence indicating the defendant had produced such documents to a government agency in another matter. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motions to compel and for terminating sanctions, accepted the defendant’s responses, and excluded key evidence at trial, which left the plaintiff unable to prove fraud.At trial, the jury found that a defect existed but concluded the defendant remedied it, resulting in a defense verdict. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, focusing on the plaintiff’s delay in discovering withheld documents and awarding costs to the defendant.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed and remanded. The court held that the defendant’s discovery misuse denied the plaintiff a fair trial, requiring a new trial and monetary sanctions to compensate for costs and attorney fees. It also directed that the plaintiff be given leave to amend the CLRA claim and vacated the award of prevailing-party costs to the defendant. View "Higginson v. Kia Motors America" on Justia Law

Lea and Samantha Johnson obtained a mortgage loan serviced by Freedom Mortgage Corporation and made regular payments. After filing for bankruptcy in March 2020, they reaffirmed the loan, but were required to pay by mail and instructed to include their loan number with each payment. In April 2020, Lea mailed a cashier’s check for their monthly payment, but did not put the loan number on the check itself. Freedom Mortgage received the check but could not identify the correct account to credit, as the check did not match the payment amount and only listed Samantha’s name, a common name among its customers. As a result, the payment was not credited and the Johnsons’ account was marked past due, which was subsequently reported to credit agencies. After realizing the issue, the Johnsons sent a new check with the loan number and the payment was credited, but their credit reports reflected a late payment.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found there was no material dispute about the accuracy of Freedom Mortgage’s reporting and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The court determined that the payment was in fact late because the first check did not comply with the required instructions, and therefore the information reported to the credit agencies was accurate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The court held that Freedom Mortgage’s investigation into the Johnsons’ credit dispute was reasonable given the conclusory nature of the dispute letters. The court also found that the reported late payment was accurate under both the standard and heightened accuracy tests, and declined to adopt a heightened standard of accuracy. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Freedom Mortgage. View "Johnson v. Freedom Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law