Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs alleged that De Beers coordinated worldwide sales of diamonds by executing agreements with competitors, setting production limits, restricting resale within regions, and directing marketing, and was able to control quantity and prices by regimenting sales to preferred wholesalers. Plaintiffs claimed violations of antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws, and unfair business practices and false advertising. De Beers initially refused to appear, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, but entered into a settlement with indirect purchasers that included a stipulated injunction. De Beers agreed to jurisdiction for the purpose of fulfilling terms of the settlement and enforcement of the injunction. The district court entered an order, approving the settlement and certifying a class of Indirect Purchasers in order to distribute the settlement fund and enforce the injunction. De Beers then entered into an agreement with direct purchasers that paralleled the Indirect Purchaser Settlement. The Third Circuit remanded the certification of two nationwide settlement classes as inconsistent with the predominance inquiry mandated by FRCP 23(b)(3), but, on rehearing, vacated its order. The court then affirmed the class certifications, rejecting a claim that the court was required to ensure that each class member possesses a colorable legal claim. The settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. View "Sullivan v. DB Inv., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant is a payroll processing firm that collects information about its customers' employees, which may include names, addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, and bank account information. In 2009, defendant suffered a security breach. It is not known whether the hacker read, copied, or understood the data. Defendant sent letters to the potential identity theft victims and arranged to provide the potentially affected individuals with one year of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection. Plaintiffs, employees of a former customer filed a class action, which was dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Third Circuit affirmed. Allegations of hypothetical, future injury do not establish standing under the "actual case of controversy" requirement of Article III. View "Reilly v. Ceridian Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant-lender reported to credit agencies that two of plaintiff's mortgage payments were received late. Plaintiff, an attorney, filed suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 and alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, breach of contract, negligence, negligent supervision, conversion, and fraud. The district court entered summary judgment for the lender. The Third Circuit affirmed. A private litigant seeking to recover against a furnisher of information under the FCRA must first make a complaint to a consumer reporting agency; plaintiff did not comply with the structural framework of the statute.

After receiving two letters from the law firm, the plaintiff filed suit claiming that the firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, by misleading him to believe that an attorney was involved in collecting his debt, and that the attorney could, and would, take legal action against him. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the "least sophisticated debtor" could conclude that an attorney, acting as an attorney, had reviewed his account and determined that he was a candidate for legal action. Disclaimers on the backs of the letters did not clarify that the firm was acting solely as a debt collector.

The district court dismissed a pro se debtor's claims against creditors, a collection firm, and credit reporting agencies, holding that expiration of the limitations period on the original debt did not prohibit assignment of or attempt to collect the debt, which had not been extinguished by bankruptcy. The Third Circuit affirmed. Although the debt is unenforceable under state law, it was not extinguished; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, does not prohibit attempts to obtain voluntary payment. Communications did not include any threat to litigate and did not amount to fraud. Nor did the collection agency violate the Act by obtaining a credit report or violate RICO by any of its actions.

The district court dismissed class actions filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b), which provides a private right of action against senders of unsolicited faxes, for lack of diversity jurisdiction. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, first noting its 1998 decision that claims under the TCPA do not qualify for federal question jurisdiction. Congress did not intend to totally strip federal courts of jurisdiction over TCPA claims, in favor of exclusive state court jurisdiction. Absent such intent, diversity jurisdiction is presumed to exist, regardless of the basis of the claim. Because the court may have diversity jurisdiction over individual TCPA claims, it must allow adequate discovery to determine whether the case meets the requirements for class certification under Rule 23.