Anna Sheridan – Class Action Defense

September 17, 2026September 17, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Show Your Work: California Federal Court Denies Preliminary Approval Of Data Breach Class Action Settlement

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Anna Sheridan, and Olga Romadin

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 16, 2026, in Jimenez, Jr., et al. v. OE Federal Credit Union, Case No. 24-CV-02746 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2026), U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in a data breach case involving over 220,000 individuals. The decision is a significant reminder that courts will scrutinize class action settlements for obvious deficiencies, and that plaintiffs seeking preliminary approval must “show their work” by providing detailed information about the relative value of their claims and the strengths and weaknesses of their case.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Daniel Jimenez Jr., Mark Hendren, and Erica Jaramillo are current or former customers of OE Federal Credit Union (“OEFCU”), which is described as “the country’s largest labor-based credit union.” Order at 1. OEFCU possessed its customers’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”), including full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, bank and financial account information, driver’s license numbers, medical procedure information, and health insurance information. Id. Sometime between August 19, 2023 and October 29, 2023, OEFCU suffered a ransomware attack and data breach resulting in unauthorized access to the PII/PHI of the named plaintiffs and the putative class.

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, violation of the California Customer Records Act, and declaratory relief. They brought claims on behalf of themselves and a class of all persons identified as being impacted by the data breach. After OEFCU moved to dismiss, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing several claims with leave to amend and the declaratory relief claim with prejudice.

The parties subsequently engaged in mediation and reached a proposed class settlement. Under the proposed settlement, OEFCU agreed to establish a non-reversionary settlement fund of $2,300,000. Id. at 3. Each class member could submit a claim of up to $5,000 for reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses traceable to the data incident. Settlement class members were also entitled to submit a claim for a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund, estimated at approximately $50 per claimant. California class members could claim an additional $75, subject to reduction based on the total number of claimants. The settlement agreement proposed to deduct $766,666.66 in attorney’s fees (one-third of the common fund), $5,000 each to the three class representatives as service awards, and undetermined amounts for litigation costs and settlement administration costs. Id.

The Court’s Decision

Judge Tigar denied the motion for preliminary approval, identifying seven deficiencies that collectively prevented a finding that the settlement fell “within the range of possible approval” under Rule 23(e)(2). See In Re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

Adequacy of Relief — Rule 23(e)(2)

The first four deficiencies all bore on whether the proposed settlement provided adequate relief to the class. The Court began by questioning the use of a claims-made distribution process, noting that because OEFCU could readily identify class members from its own records, requiring them to submit claims was unnecessary and would predictably depress the actual payout — “[t]he effect of not simply distributing relief to the known class members is that the defendant will likely pay out much less than it would if there were no claiming process.” Order at 6. The Court noted that claims-made settlements are appropriate when it is the best or only option available, as is often the case with consumer class actions. Id. The Court faulted Plaintiffs for providing no information about the maximum potential recovery at trial, offering instead only boilerplate that the settlement “provides significant relief” and “is well within the range of other data breach settlements.” Relatedly, Plaintiffs supplied only generic statements about the “high level of risk, expense, and complexity” of continued litigation rather than a careful analysis of the claims and defenses — falling short of the Court’s requirement that movants “show their work by explaining the relative value of their claims in significant detail.” Order at 7–8 (quoting Haralson, 383 F. Supp. 3d at 970). Finally, the Court observed that the estimated $50 per-member pro rata payment was unsupported by evidence. Order at 8. After subtracting attorney’s fees alone, the actual per-member recovery was closer to $6, and would decline further once administration costs, incentive awards, and out-of-pocket reimbursement claims were accounted for — the Court noted that if just over 300 claimants sought the full $5,000 reimbursement, the pro rata share could dwindle to nothing for remaining class members. Order at 8.

Equitable Treatment — Rule 23(e)(2)(D)

The fifth deficiency concerned the settlement’s differential treatment of class members. The settlement provided California class members a higher recovery than non-California members, yet Plaintiffs identified no California subclass with distinct claims that might justify the disparity. Order at 8–9. The Court emphasized that unexplained disparate treatment “increases the likelihood that the settlement agreement does not meet the Rule 23(e) standard.” Id. at 9 (quoting Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., No. 10-CV-01455, 2012 WL 1156399, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2012)).

Accuracy and Procedural Compliance

The final two deficiencies concerned the quality of the submission itself. The Court identified a material discrepancy between the motion’s description of the timing of payments to class members and the actual terms of the settlement agreement. Order at 9–10. The Court also found that the motion failed to comply with the Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidelines for Class Action Settlements — including the requirements to explain anticipated versus maximum class recovery, to identify the settlement administration process and its costs, and to provide information about comparable settlements. Id. at 10; see also Bakhtiar v. Info. Res., Inc., No. 17-CV-04559, 2020 WL 11421997, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2020) (“A movant’s failure to address the issues discussed in the Guidelines is a proper ground for denying a motion for preliminary or final approval of a class action settlement.”).

The Court denied the motion without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ filing a revised motion, which it ordered due by November 4, 2026. The Court also reminded the parties that the Ninth Circuit benchmark for attorney’s fees in a successful class action is 25% of the common fund, and that Plaintiffs should justify any deviation from that benchmark. Id.

Implications For Companies

The Jimenez decision is a reminder that courts will closely scrutinize class action settlements at the preliminary approval stage, particularly in data breach litigation impacting consumers. The decision underscores several key points for corporate counsel. Most importantly, parties should closely follow the Court’s Procedural Guidelines for Class Action Settlements as failure to heed those Guidelines can serve as an independent basis for denying preliminary approval.

On a more granular level, the Jimenez decision offers other relevant practice pointers for class action settlements. First, claims-made settlement structures may be disfavored where the class members are readily identifiable from the defendant’s records. Second, plaintiffs seeking preliminary approval must do more than offer boilerplate language about the risks of litigation — they must provide concrete information about the maximum potential recovery and a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of their claims. Third, settlements that provide differential treatment to subsets of class members without explanation may face heightened scrutiny under Rule 23(e)(2)(D). Companies facing data breach class actions should work closely with counsel to ensure that any settlement submissions provide the level of detail and analysis that courts increasingly require before granting preliminary approval.

September 14, 2026September 14, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Court Bars Employer From Distributing Arbitration Agreement To Settlement Class Members During Pendency Of Class Settlement

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Anna Sheridan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 4, 2026, in Calderon, et al. v. Public Partnerships, LLC, No. 25-CV-02320 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2026), U.S. Magistrate Judge Lara K. Eshkenazi of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York barred a defendant from distributing a proposed dispute resolution agreement (“DRA”) containing a class action waiver to settlement class members during the period between preliminary and final approval of a class settlement. The decision is a reminder that employers seeking to implement arbitration agreements during the pendency of class litigation must carefully consider timing, and that courts will exercise their authority under Rule 23(d) to protect class members from communications that could cause confusion during critical phases of a settlement.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, personal assistants (“PAs”) who received payment through Public Partnerships, LLC (“PPL”) as part of the New York State Medicaid Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (“CDPAP”), brought a class action alleging that PPL violated state and federal law by failing to pay them accurately and on time. After extensive mediation, the parties reached a class settlement and submitted a motion for preliminary approval of class certification, appointment of class counsel, and class settlement on June 23, 2026.

At the preliminary approval hearing on July 1, 2026, PPL raised the topic of a proposed DRA that it intended to distribute to PAs, including settlement class members. PPL explained that it wanted to institute the DRA, including a class action waiver, to create a mechanism to address issues raised by PAs without becoming subject to lawsuits related to its role as the statewide fiscal intermediary. Plaintiffs opposed the implementation of the DRA to the extent it would impact settlement class members, arguing it could confuse class members and cause them to mistakenly opt out of the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs also noted that a prior attempt by PPL to implement a DRA had led to significant class confusion, resulting in PPL withdrawing the DRA.

After the parties were unable to resolve the dispute, PPL filed a motion for approval of its proposed DRA and Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for a Rule 23(d) order barring distribution of the DRA to settlement class members before final approval of the settlement.

The Court’s Decision

The Court denied PPL’s motion and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a Rule 23(d) order.

The Court applied the framework set forth in Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 449 F. Supp. 3d 216, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), considering factors including class members’ relative vulnerability, evidence of actual or contextual risk of coercion, whether the provision was imposed unilaterally, and evidence of misleading conduct, language, or omissions. The Court emphasized that it need not find actual or willful misconduct “so long as the effect is to interfere with class members’ rights.” (Op. at 4).

While the Court acknowledged that the DRA itself was not coercive or misleading, and credited the steps PPL had taken to reduce confusion, the Court concluded that the risk of confusion for settlement class members was high for several reasons.

First, the timing of the DRA rollout would directly overlap with notifications to settlement class members of the settlement, which could confuse class members about the relationship between the DRA and the settlement.

Second, the DRA contained an opt-out process that, despite best efforts at clarity, could still cause settlement class members to inadvertently opt out of the settlement — a risk the Court found was particularly high due to the number of settlement class members for whom English is not their first language. Third, the timing of the DRA rollout could cause settlement class members to believe that accepting the arbitration agreement was a condition of accepting the settlement.

The Court distinguished the case PPL primarily relied on – Carusillo v. FanSided, Inc., No. 20 Civ. 4766, 2021 WL 4311167 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2021) – where the court had permitted distribution of an arbitration agreement during a collective action opt-in period. The Court explained that Carusillo involved a relatively early stage of the litigation, whereas Calderon was in its final stages, with a final approval hearing scheduled for November 10, 2026. The Court noted that PPL offered no explanation for the urgency of its request to communicate with settlement class members about the DRA rather than waiting just a few months until the risk of confusion would no longer exist.

The Court further rejected PPL’s argument that Plaintiffs’ concerns about class confusion ended on September 19, 2026 — the deadline for opt-outs and objections — finding that the risk of confusion would persist even after the opt-out deadline because class members would continue to learn about their settlement rights and could potentially submit late opt-outs.

Implications For Employers

The Calderon decision underscores the importance of timing when implementing arbitration agreements during pending class litigation. While courts have permitted employers to introduce arbitration agreements during the pendency of class or collective actions, the Calderon ruling makes clear that courts will scrutinize the timing of such communications, particularly during the sensitive period between preliminary and final approval of a class settlement. The Court’s decision did not prevent PPL from distributing the DRA to non-class members, and it did not find the DRA itself to be coercive or misleading. Employers should take note, however, that even a well-drafted arbitration agreement with meaningful opt-out protections can be blocked if the timing of its distribution could cause confusion or interfere with class members’ rights during a settlement process. Employers considering rolling out arbitration agreements or dispute resolution programs during the pendency of class litigation should work closely with counsel to carefully evaluate the litigation timeline and consider whether it is prudent to delay the rollout until after settlement proceedings conclude.

September 8, 2026September 8, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

One Step At A Time: Another District Court Rejects The Lusardi Bifurcated Discovery And Conditional Certification Approach

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Mike Rosenblatt, and Anna Sheridan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 3, 2026, in Harris, et al. v. Shoe Show, Inc., No. 3:25-CV-00398 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026), Judge Susan C. Rodriguez denied Plaintiffs’ pre-discovery motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and granted Defendant’s emergency motion for expedited, single stage discovery. The decision joins the growing trend of courts declining to bifurcate FLSA discovery into conditional certification and post-conditional certification stages.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Benjamin Harris and Marticilla Roberts brought suit against Shoe Show, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Stands Act (“FLSA”). According to the Complaint, filed June 11, 2025, Defendant Shoe Show, Inc. allegedly failed to pay store managers for all overtime hours worked. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they were required to communicate with co-workers and supervisors about work-related matters outside of the store while off-the-clock. The Complaint defined Plaintiffs’ proposed FLSA collective action as “all hourly-paid and overtime-eligible Store Managers, who worked over 40 hours in any workweek for Defendant” for the prior three plus years (the alleged lookback period was slightly longer than the typical three years for an FLSA claim due to an alleged tolling agreement).

On July 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a pre-discovery motion for conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA § 216(b). On July 28, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to expedite discovery and requested a stay on briefing on Plaintiffs’ pre-discovery motion for conditional certification. Defendant’s motion stated that Plaintiffs used “boilerplate declarations” that “call[ed] into question their evidentiary value.” Defendant also provided declarations from thirty store managers to counter Plaintiffs’ claims to demonstrate that their claims “are not commonly shared by the Company’s Store Managers.”

The District Court’s Ruling

In a 3-page opinion, Judge Rodriguez denied Plaintiffs’ pre-discovery motion for conditional certification and granted Defendant’s motion for expedited discovery. The Court was brief in its analysis, citing “the arguments, record, and applicable authority, including the text” of the FLSA. Op. at 1.

The Court primarily relied on the growing case law revisiting the so-called “two-step process” for certification of FLSA collective actions. Prior to 2021, in what is commonly referred to as the Lusardi approach, courts almost universally applied a two-step process to certification of FLSA collective actions, first requiring a plaintiff to make a modest factual showing that plaintiff was similarly situated to others, followed by a second stage with a more thorough examination of evidence with the benefit of discovery. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). In 2021, the Fifth Circuit in Swales, et al. v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, 985 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2021), rejected the two-step approach for evaluating motions for certification of collective actions, holding that district courts should “rigorously scrutinize the realm of ‘similarly-situated’ workers … at the outset of the case.” In 2023, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), likewise rejected the two-step approach, though introduced a new standard requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that other employees are “similarly-situated” to the plaintiff.

Though the Fourth Circuit has yet to weigh in on this issue, Judge Rodriguez cited the Fifth Circuit’s approach in Swales, the Sixth Circuit in Clark, and two district court decisions within the Fourth Circuit rejecting bifurcated certification under the FLSA. Op. at 2. See Hubbard v. Southwood Realty Co., No. 3:24-CV-00481, 2026 WL 823169 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2026); Mathews v. USA Today Sports Media Grp., LLC, 1:22-CV-1407, 2023 WL 3676795 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2023).

Implications for Companies

When addressing FLSA collective action claims, corporate counsel should be cautioned against accepting Lusardi’s bifurcated approach without pushback and cite to Swales and Clark to slow down a plaintiff’s race to conditional certification. After Hubbard, the Harris decision is now the second district court opinion within the Fourth Circuit in 2026 to reject Lusardi and adopt a single, streamlined discovery approach for FLSA certification. While most circuits still use the Lusardi approach, the circuit split created by the Swales (5th Circuit), Clark (6th Circuit), and Richards, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 149 F.4th 901 (7th Cir. 2025), rejecting Lusardi shows that momentum is moving away from bifurcated discovery.

In the Fourth Circuit in particular, companies can add Harris, in addition to Hubbard and Mathews,to their toolkit to strengthen their arguments against the two-step Lusardi approach. As with any circuit split, this latest trend against bifurcated discovery reinforces how critical it is for companies to understand the approach in the district where they are being sued, but the recent trend away from Lusardi should give companies the impetus in any jurisdiction for arguing against bifurcated discovery and rushing to conditional certification.

March 25, 2026March 25, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Maryland Federal District Court Finds That Oral Consent Is Sufficient To Make Telemarketing Calls Using A Prerecorded Voice

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Anna Sheridan, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 20, 2026, in Bradley, et al. v. DentalPlans.com, No. 20-CV-010904, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59569 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2026), Judge Brandan Hurson of the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland decertified a certified class action and granted summary judgment on a named plaintiff’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claim. The decision is premised on the legal conclusion that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) lacked the authority to interpret the TCPA’s consent provisions to require prior express written consent for telemarketing calls and continues the trend of courts which are challenging the FCC’s longstanding monopoly to interpret the statute.

Case Background

DentalPlans operates a “direct-to-consumer marketplace” that sells dental savings plans, including plans offered by Cigna. In November 2018, Deborah Bradley called DentalPlans to enroll in a plan and the representative asked her whether the company had her consent to contact her using “automated dialing system or prerecorded message.” Bradley, et al. v. DentalPlans.com, No. 20-CV-01094, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10050, at *3 (D. Md. June 6, 2024). Bradley ultimately provided such consent and signed up for a dental discount plan with Cigna.

In September 2019, however, Bradley spoke to another DentalPlans representative and told that representative that she did not want her dental plan to automatically renew. As a result, DentalPlans started placing prerecorded calls to Bradley which informed her that “her membership was ending soon and that she could renew her plan.” After Bradley’s plan expired, she continued to receive prerecorded calls which “attempted to ‘win back’ [her] business by encouraging her to repurchase her Cigna plan with DentalPlans.” Id. at *5. In total, DentalPlans placed 10 “win back” calls to Bradley prior to the filing of the action.

As a result of these calls, on April 28, 2020, Bradley filed a putative class action lawsuit under the TCPA, alleging that the calls constituted unauthorized telemarketing calls using prerecorded messages. The crux of Bradley’s argument was that because these calls allegedly constituted “telemarketing” the applicable FCC regulations required prior express written consent, and oral consent would not suffice. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2). The court agreed with Bradley’s interpretation of the regulation, granted class certification, and certified a class comprised in part of “any consumer who signed up by telephone.” Id. at *27. Bradley then sent notice to the class members and the parties continued to litigate the case.

DentalPlans ultimately filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting class certification. In that motion, Dental Plans argued, inter alia, that the court’s reliance on 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) was misplaced following the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate that district courts are “not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.” McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146, 168 (2025). The parties then briefed that issue.

The Court’s Decision

In a thorough 24-page opinion, Judge Hurson walked through the proper interpretation of the phrase “prior express consent” as used in the TCPA and the scope of Congress’s delegation to the FCC.

In so doing, Judge Hurson turned to the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303, 312 (11th Cir. 2025), which explained that the “TCPA gives the FCC only the authority to ‘reasonably define’ the TCPA’s consent-provisions” and not create a non-statutory consent regime. Judge Hurson, therefore, reasoned that because the phrase “prior express written consent” was not contained in the statute, the proper interpretation of the statute’s actual language hinged on the authority that Congress delegated to the FCC.

Similarly, Judge Hurson looked to the Fifth Circuit’s very recent decision in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc., 167 F.4th 809, 812 (5th Cir. 2026), which held the TCPA provides “no basis for concluding that telemarketing calls require prior express written consentbut not oral consent.” (emphasis in original).

Based on these opinions, because the “written consent” language does not appear in the statute, Judge Hurson concluded that Congress needed to delegate the interpretation of the TCPA to the FCC for its current interpretation to stand. But no such delegation is contained in the TCPA. As a result, the “best interpretation” of the statute was that “express consent” is the only requirement imposed by the TCPA, even if the consent is obtained orally.

Therefore, because Bradley provided oral consent to DentalPlans receive such to prerecorded messages when she signed up for her dental plan, she (and, the class) had no viable claims. The court, accordingly, granted summary judgment on Bradley’s individual claim and decertified the previously certified class action.

Implications For Companies

The Bradley decision continues an important trend for companies making telemarketing calls to consumers.

As we explained here, when the Fifth Circuit decided Bradford, the written consent requirement has long been thought of as one of the hallmarks of the FCC’s regulatory regime and is often used by the plaintiff’s bar to assert technical violations of the TCPA even where it is clear that a customer approved of such calls. But the current trend shows that the underlying regulatory scheme is quickly eroding with each decision that passes.

Nevertheless, the decisions in Bradford and Bradley represent only the middle ground on these issues. Other courts would go further and hold that Congress’s entire delegation of any of its authority “run[s] afoul of the nondelegation doctrine, since there are no delimitations on the discretion it grants the” FCC. McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., No. 25-CV-61164, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8059, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026). Thus, the landscape of positions on such issues is wide ranging and changing by the day.

As a result of this shifting landscape, corporate counsel, and companies engaged in telemarketing, should continue to monitor this blog to stay apprised of any updates as new decisions continue to modify the FCC’s longstanding interpretation of the TCPA.

February 18, 2026February 18, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Fourth Circuit Splits The Baby In Deciding That Virginia District Court Erred By Striking Class Allegations Under One Subsection Of Rule 23 But Not Another

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca S. Bjork, and Anna Sheridan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On February 9, 2026, in Oliver, et al. v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 24-1656 (4th Cir. Feb. 9, 2026), the Fourth Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling partially affirming a district court’s order striking class allegations from a complaint alleging racial discrimination in mortgage lending before any discovery had occurred. In addition to the parties’ briefs, the Fourth Circuit received briefs from four amici supporting the defendant, indicating substantial interest in the outcome of the appeal. Navy Federal Credit Union prevailed in the district court on its motion to strike the class allegations from the complaint pled under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3). On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision striking the Rule 23(b)(2) allegations because it found that the district court acted prematurely, given the legal standards governing when courts are authorized to do so (which it helpfully clarified). However, under those same legal standards, the majority concluded that the district court properly struck the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(b)(3) allegations. The dissenting judge concurred with the decision to affirm striking the Rule 23(b)(3) allegations but would also have affirmed the ruling striking the Rule 23(b)(2) allegations.

The decision is a helpful illustration of how defendants facing class action litigation can use the mechanism of Rule 23(c)(1)(A) to eliminate class-wide exposure early in the process, along with the limitations of such an approach.

Case Background

Laquita Oliver and nine other named plaintiffs, who all are either Black or Latino, brought a putative class action against Navy Federal Credit Union in 2023 alleging that the lender systematically discriminates against minority mortgage loan applicants based on their race. Slip op. at 3. Plaintiffs allege that the lender uses a “semi-automated underwriting process” and a single form for collecting information from every applicant that includes information that can be proxies for race, resulting in unlawful intentional and disparate impact discrimination. Id. at 4, 15-16. They sought class-wide relief for “all minority residential loan applicants from 2018 through the present” whose loans were denied, issued with less favorable terms, or processed more slowly than non-minority applicants. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs sought certification of a class to provide injunctive and declaratory relief generally applicable to the class as a whole under Rule 23(b)(2), and also certification under Rule 23(b)(3) – allowing class treatment where common issues predominate over individualized issues. Id. at 16.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and a motion to strike the class allegations in the complaint under Rule 12(f) and Rule 23(d)(1)(D). Id. at 5. It argued the case could not proceed as a class action due to myriad differences between the loan products they offer, and because the plaintiffs “failed to explain how an undefined underwriting process could produce discriminatory effects for class members who applied for different [loan] products.” Id. The district court denied the motion to dismiss but granted to motion to strike the class allegations, and the Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Id. at 5.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision

A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision striking the Rule 23(b)(3) class allegations from Plaintiffs’ complaint before any discovery had occurred but reversed the decision to strike the class allegations seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2). The dissenting judge would have affirmed the district court’s decision in full.

As a threshold matter, which this blog’s more wonkish readers will appreciate, the Court of Appeals took the time to sort through a procedural miasma present in Rule 23 litigation relating to motions to strike class allegations. Navy Federal Credit Union, like many other defendants before them, had moved to strike under Rule 12(f) – which allows courts to strike material from complaints that they deem to be “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous” (id. at 7) – along with Rule 23(d)(1)(D), which allows them to order that a party amend their pleadings to remove class allegations. Id. at 8. The Fourth Circuit determined that those rules, as a logical and practical matter, cannot form the basis for a district court to issue an order striking class allegations, but instead, Rule 23(c)(1)(A) does. Id. at 6, 9. That rule requires district courts to decide class certification issues at “an early practicable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). Because a decision to strike class allegations necessarily implies that those allegations cannot possibly form the basis for a decision on class certification, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Rule 23(c), which is entirely concerned with the class certification process, is the proper procedural vehicle. Id. at 6-9. Even though Navy Federal Credit Union did not raise that rule as its procedural mechanism for seeking to strike the class allegations, the Court of Appeals decided it would do so sua sponte in affirming the order striking the Rule 23(b)(3) class. Id. at 9, n.1.

Then, the majority explained how district courts should analyze allegations in class action complaints when defendants move to strike them to determine whether the time is right to do so. In other words, such motions may not be granted prematurely, and district courts within the Fourth Circuit must now do so by looking to the face of the complaint. Applying the 1978 precedent established in Goodman v. Schlesinger, 584 F.2d 1325 (4th Cir. 1978), it decided that if the class claims fail as a matter of law, district courts may strike them before any discovery has occurred. Id. at 6. However, district courts commit legal error if they grant such motions where the dispute cannot readily be resolved by looking at the complaint alone. Id. at 11-12. The majority concluded that just as a district court may never grant class certification based solely on the face of the complaint, a court may deny class certification at that preliminary stage only if the class allegations do not satisfy Rule 23’s class certification requirements as a matter of law. Id. at 13.

Finally, the majority examined whether the district court erred when it granted Navy Federal Credit Union’s motion to strike both class claims before discovery occurred. It decided that the district court exceeded its discretion when it struck the Rule 23(b)(2) class claim, but it was not error to strike the Rule 23(b)(3) class claim. Id. at 14. The majority noted that while it was not entirely clear based on the record before why the district court ruled the way it did on the defendant’s motion, the language used indicated a concern from the district court judge about the manageability of the Rule 23(b)(3) class claims and whether a class action would be a superior method for trying such claims, given the material variations in the types of mortgage products applied for and their various requirements. Id. at 14-15. Thus, the plaintiffs’ factual allegations could not be tried on a class-wide basis consistent with Rule 23. But the allegations relating to the Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class was different, the majority concluded. The allegations underlying that class claim are far more cohesive and centralized than the others, making it error for the district court to strike those allegations under Rule 23. Id. at 16-18.

Implications For Class Action Defendants

When companies are sued in class actions, it is crucial for them to have corporate counsel that understand not only the stakes and extreme exposure risk such lawsuits present, but also the nuances and often-changing jurisprudence governing Rule 23. Motions to strike class allegations are a very powerful tool for such companies to use, and the Fourth Circuit’s decision is a welcome clarification of how to think deliberately and critically about the prospects for such motion practice to succeed. The key is to understand the relationship between the specific facts alleged in such complaints and the requirements of Rule 23, in all of its nuances.

January 30, 2026January 30, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Preservation Behavior Will Avoid Waiver: Third Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding Company Waived Right To Enforce Arbitration Provisions

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Shannon Noelle, and Anna Sheridan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On January 7, 2026, in Valli et al. v. Avis Budget Group Inc. et al., Case No. 24-3025 (3d Cir. Jan. 7, 2026), the Third Circuit issued a mandate vacating an order from the District Court for the District of New Jersey denying a rental car company’s motion to compel arbitration and remanding the action for the District Court to address properly presented challenges to enforceability of the arbitration provisions that it did not reach in its decision. Avis appealed an order from the District Court denying its motion to compel arbitration of the claims of a certified class of renters presenting legal challenges to imposition of fees associated with traffic or parking fines incurred during the rental period. The Third Circuit found that Avis did not waive its right to compel arbitration by participating in litigation for years with the named Plaintiffs (whose rental agreements did not contain arbitration provisions) as Avis asserted its arbitration rights as an affirmative defense in its answers, raised the issue in opposition to class certification, and promptly field to a motion to compel after its Rule 23(f) petition challenging class certification was denied. This decision underscores that where named plaintiffs are not subject to arbitration provisions, but class members may have such constraints, pre-certification conduct preserving arbitration rights is essential to avoid waiver post-certification when arbitration rights are ripe.

Case Background

The named Plaintiff Dawn Valli filed a putative class action in September 2014 challenging Avis’ imposition of fees associated with a speeding traffic violation caught by a traffic camera that Avis paid and then charged Plaintiff Valli the $150 traffic fine it covered as well as a $30 administrative fee. Case No. 24-3025, ECF No. 53-3, at 3. The notice that Avis sent to Plaintiff Valli warned that Avis would charge $180 to Ms. Valli’s credit card if she did not make timely payment. Id. at 4. Plaintiff Valli brought an action on behalf of herself and other putative class members asserting state law claims including violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and unjust enrichment on the theory that Avis deprived renters of an opportunity to contest the traffic violations by paying fines before notifying renters of the infractions and allowing them the ability to contest the fines. Id.

Avis moved to dismiss the complaint several times for failure to state a claim. Id. at 4-5. On April 1, 2016, Avis updated its rental agreement to include a mandatory arbitration provision for disputes arising out of the rental agreement and rental of its vehicles. Id. at 5. After Avis filed a renewed motion to dismiss (which did not mention the arbitration agreement as it only applied prospectively), the District Court denied the motion on May 10, 2017. Id. at 6. On May 25, 2017, Avis answered the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting its arbitration rights as an affirmative defense. Id. In June 2018, Avis allowed Ms. Valli to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) adding another named Plaintiff. Id. at 7. Avis again invoked its arbitration rights as an affirmative defense in its answer. Id.

In July 2019, the two named Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of renters that were required to reimburse Avis for traffic, parking, tolls, or other violations and associated administrative fees. Id. at 8. In support of the motion for class certification, Plaintiffs defined the class period for the first time as September 30, 2008, through the present. Id. In opposition to class certification, Avis argued that the named Plaintiffs—who were not subject to its 2016 arbitration provisions—could not adequately represent the interest of renters that must arbitrate their claims. Id. Avis also argued that, at the motion to dismiss stage, such arguments were not ripe as it was unclear how the named Plaintiffs would define the class and whether it would include renters bound by arbitration agreements. Id. Oral argument on class certification occurred two years later, but Avis asserted the argument that the arbitration provisions defeated class certification. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiffs countered that Avis waived the argument by not having raised it earlier and choosing to participate in the litigation. Id. at 9. The District Court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue. Id. In its supplemental brief filed on September 15, 2022, Avis reiterated that nearly half the members of the putative class signed arbitration agreements and the named Plaintiffs (who had not) could not fairly represent the interests of those putative class members. Id. Avis filed another brief approximately two weeks later, arguing that it had preserved its arbitration rights by raising arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answers to both the FAC and SAC. Id. Avis also emphasized that Plaintiffs’ July 2019 class certification motion was the first time they identified arbitration-bound renters as putative class members. Id.

In October 2023, the District Court certified a subclass of individuals that rented an Avis vehicle from September 30, 2008, through the present and whose rented vehicle was the subject of an alleged parking, traffic, tolls, or other violation, where the class member was charged for such fine, penalty, and court costs, and/or associated administrative fee. Id. at 10. Avis filed a Rule 23(f) petition challenging certification of the class that was denied in November 2023. Id. at 10-11. Three months later, in February 2024, Avis moved to compel individual arbitration of the relevant class members’ claims. Id. at 11. Avis disputed that it waived its right to enforce its arbitration agreements arguing that any earlier motion to compel would have been directed at unnamed class members and would have therefore been futile before class certification. Id. On September 30, 2024, the District Court denied Avis’ motion to compel arbitration and faulted Avis for failing to formally seek to enforce arbitration until after the class had been certified. Avis appealed that decision to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

The Third Circuit found that Avis’ pre-certification litigation conduct was indeed relevant to the waiver issue, but this conduct indicated that the company had adequately preserved its arbitration rights.

The Third Circuit found that “[c]entral to th[e] case” was the “interplay between” the doctrine of waiver and futility. Id. at 12. The Third Circuit resolved the parties’ dispute as to whether Avis’ pre-certification conduct was relevant to the issue of waiver by answering this question in the affirmative. Id. at 14. In support of that finding, the Third Circuit found it notable that Avis “knew” of its prospective right to enforce arbitration “even if it lacked a present ability to enforce it pre-certification.” Id. at 19. The Third Circuit reasoned that the purpose of the waiver doctrine is to prevent “gamesmanship” or permitting a defendant to litigate aggressively for a merits advantage so that it can pivot to arbitration “the moment it becomes advantageous to do so, all without consequence.” Id. at 20. Yet, the Third Circuit found that the doctrine of futility “excuses the failure to file a formal motion to compel as to the unnamed class members” because to do so would be futile given that a District Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such a request. Id. The Third Circuit next addressed what a party must do to preserve future arbitration rights it cannot presently enforce. Id. at 21. The Third Circuit held that to implicitly waive arbitration rights, a party must litigate in a way that is inconsistent with a desire to arbitrate.

The District Court had identified two such events: (1) Avis’ motion of August 18, 2016 that did not mention arbitration; and (2) Avis’ participation in discovery and mediation. Id. at 26. Rejecting the first ground for finding waiver, the Third Circuit opined that it was not until two years later that plaintiffs defined the putative class to include post-April 2016 renters thus the motion to dismiss did not waive its arbitration rights. As to the second ground for finding waiver, the Third Circuit ruled that while Avis did not object to discovery or seek to exclude information concerning arbitration-bound renters, Plaintiffs could identify “only a single instance in which Avis produced information not also relevant to other customers who are not subject to arbitration.” Id. at 27. Further, “critically, Avis never sought discovery specifically targeted at arbitration-bound putative class members.” Id. at 27-28. The Third Circuit clarified that “discovery and mediation conduct can support a finding of waiver in the appropriate circumstances,” but explained that “discovery directed at non-arbitrable claims does not, by itself, waive the right to arbitrate arbitrable claims.” Id. at 28. The Third Circuit also found it significant that Avis “repeatedly put its intent to arbitrate on record” by consistently asserting its arbitration rights in opposing certification and reaffirming its stance two years later during oral argument. Id. at 29. The Third Circuit further reasoned that the fact that Avis moved to compel arbitration four months after the District Court’s certification decision was prompt enough and “not unreasonable” particularly as Avis’ Rule 23(f) petition was still pending. Id. Ten days after the Third Circuit denied the Rule 23(f) petition, the District Court held a status conference on December 14, 2023, setting a deadline of February 2024 for the motion to compel which Avis met. Id. at 29-30.

The Third Circuit stopped short of directing the District Court to compel the relevant class members to arbitrate their claims and did not reach the Plaintiff’s claims challenging the enforceability of the arbitration agreements, finding that the District Court relied exclusively on waiver in its decision and remanding the action permitting the District Court to reach the issue of enforceability if properly presented.

On January 13, 2026, the District of New Jersey issued an order implementing the mandate of the Third Circuit and vacating its September 30, 2024 order denying Avis’ motion to compel arbitration. A status conference is set for February 2026.

Implications For Class Action Defendants

Where named plaintiffs are not subject to arbitration agreements but defendants suspect that putative class members may be, defendants must act promptly to preserve their arbitration rights even where a motion to compel arbitration is not ripe, by asserting arbitration rights as an affirmative defense in answers to class action complaints and in opposition to class certification (as a basis for lacking commonality, adequate representation, typicality, etc.). The Third Circuit’s decision in Avis provides a guidepost for proper preservation of arbitration rights that class action defendants are well-advised to heed.

December 1, 2025December 1, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

District Of Columbia Federal Court Declines To Narrow EEOC’s Pregnancy-Bias Suit Against Security Firm

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca Bjork, and Anna Sheridan

Key Takeaways: In EEOC v. Security Assurance Management Inc., No. 25-CV-00181, 2025 WL 2911781 (D.D.C. Oct. 14, 2025), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to pare back the EEOC’s pregnancy and lactation claims against Security Assurance Management, Inc. (“SAM”), leaving all five causes of action under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and both Title VII counts intact. Applying Rule 12(c), the Court held – in an order denying Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss – the “heavy burden” on a defendant seeking judgment on the pleadings and determined that the EEOC’s theories — though factually overlapping — targeted distinct harms and therefore were not “duplicative.” The Court’s refusal to dismiss any of the EEOC’s PWFA counts sends a clear signal that defendants will face an uphill battle when trying to narrow pregnancy-related claims at the pleadings stage, particularly after filing an answer.

Case Background

The EEOC filed suit under Title VII and the PWFA on behalf of Simone Cooper, a special police officer who was reassigned after the client at her post did not want her working at the site while pregnant. (Compl. ¶ 17). As the court summarized, the EEOC “brings this employment discrimination action against Security Assurance Management, Inc. pursuant to Title VII … and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act,” alleging that SAM “disciplined and removed an employee, Simone Cooper (‘Ms. Cooper’), from her assignment due to her pregnancy-related condition and her need for accommodations.” Id. at *3.

After her maternity leave, Cooper was placed at a Hampton Inn post where she “was breastfeeding and had the pregnancy-related medical condition of lactation.” Id. The court noted that she “could nonetheless perform the essential functions of her job as an Unarmed Special Police Officer,” but SAM “repeatedly denied or ignored Ms. Cooper’s accommodation requests.” Id. The consequences were significant, as “Ms. Cooper leaked through her clothing during the workday on at least two occasions,” and because SAM provided no adequate space, “Ms. Cooper had to pump in her car in the Hampton Inn parking lot.” Id.

Despite outreach by Cooper, her union representative, and her attorney, the company allegedly did not engage in any interactive process. SAM eventually issued a written warning for “excessive absenteeism” that included days she was not scheduled and the day she left after leaking through her uniform. Id. at *4. She was later removed from the schedule entirely.

The complaint asserts seven claims, including two under Title VII and five under the PWFA for failure to accommodate, adverse action based on accommodation requests, denial of employment opportunities, retaliation, and interference. After it filed its Answer, SAM filed a partial motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of three of the counts as purportedly duplicative.

The Court’s Ruling

Because SAM filed an Answer before seeking dismissal, the court treated the request as a Rule 12(c) motion. As Judge Contreras explained, such a motion “will be granted only if Defendant can demonstrate that no material fact is in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” and at this early stage the movant “shoulders a heavy burden of justification.” Id. at *6.

The Court began with its definition, citing from Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran’s “duplicative claim test.” It explained that “duplicative claims are those that stem from identical allegations, that are decided under identical legal standards, and for which identical relief is available.” Id. at *7 (quoting Wultz, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1, 81 (D.D.C. 2010)). SAM argued that several PWFA claims were repetitive, but after analyzing each count, the Court held otherwise.

Most notably, SAM asserted that the “Adverse Actions” claim duplicated the PWFA retaliation claim because both concerned similar employment decisions. Judge Contreras disagreed, emphasizing that the counts “assert different motivations for Defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.” Id. at *8. The adverse-action theory centers on actions taken “on account of” Cooper’s accommodation requests, while retaliation requires adverse treatment because she opposed unlawful practices. “Because Count Two (Adverse Actions) and Count Four (Retaliation) arise from different allegations,” the court concluded, “the claims are not duplicative.” Id. at *9.

The Court applied the same reasoning to SAM’s attempt to collapse the PWFA adverse-action, denial-of-opportunities, and interference counts into the single failure-to-accommodate claim. Those theories, Judge Contreras explained, each addressed different harms and are evaluated under distinct legal standards. As a result, “none are duplicative,” and the Court denied the motion in full. Id. at* 7.

Implications For Employers

This opinion is a reminder that overlapping facts do not automatically render multiple statutory claims redundant — especially under the PWFA, where Congress created several discrete causes of action aimed at different workplace harms. Courts are giving each theory breathing room rather than collapsing them into a single “pregnancy discrimination” count.

Procedurally, the decision warns defendants against using post-Answer motions to trim suits. Under Rule 12(c), the movant faces a “heavy burden,” and close questions typically favor allowing the case to proceed to discovery.

Substantively, the facts the Court credited (removing a visibly pregnant worker at a client’s request, ignoring repeated lactation-related accommodation needs, forcing pumping in a car, and disciplining a worker for consequences of inadequate accommodations) are the kinds of scenarios likely to support claims not just under the PWFA, but also under Title VII.

The decision reinforces that the PWFA is a powerful, stand-alone statute with multiple actionable theories. Courts will not readily prune these claims at the pleading stage, and the EEOC is deploying them aggressively. Employers should treat pregnancy-related accommodation requests with the same rigor as disability accommodations – engage promptly, document communications, provide appropriate space and break time, and avoid client-driven decisions that move or remove pregnant workers.

December 1, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Portal-to-Portal Exemptions: Pre-Shift COVID Testing Counts As Work Under State Law And Legislature Quickly Reverses Course

By Gerald L. Maatman and Anna Sheridan

Key Takeaways: In Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Malloy, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (Oct. 30, 2025), the Nevada Supreme Court resolved an important certified question affecting wage-and-hour litigation statewide – it ruled that Nevada’s wage laws do not incorporate the federal Portal-to-Portal Act’s (“PPA”) broad exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The ruling arose in the context of Amazon’s mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 testing policy during the pandemic, under which employees alleged unpaid time for required health screenings. Because Nevada has not adopted the PPA, the Court held that these federally recognized exemptions are not available to employers as a categorical defense under state law. However, the Nevada Legislature acted almost immediately, enacting SB 8 in a special session just weeks later to expressly import PPA style exemptions into the state law.

Case Background

Nevada Resident Dwight Malloy, a warehouse employee at an Amazon fulfillment center, filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada alleging that Amazon violated NRS 608.016 by requiring workers to undergo mandatory health screenings without paying them for the time spent completing these protocols. He alleged that the mandatory COVID-19 testing before each shift added several minutes of unpaid time. Relying on Nevada’s broader state constitutional wage protections, Malloy brought a proposed class action seeking compensation for all employees subjected to this COVID-19 testing.

Amazon moved to dismiss, urging the district court to apply the Portal-to-Portal Act and treat the testing as non-compensable preliminary activity. Under the PPA, federal law excludes from the definition of compensable work time activities “preliminary to” or “postliminary to” an employee’s principal duties. Amazon argued that Nevada has historically mirrored the FLSA and that the PPA’s framework should follow. The district court disagreed, concluding that Nevada law had not incorporated the PPA and that mandatory testing time was compensable. Faced with competing interpretations of the statute and no controlling Nevada precedent, the federal court invoked Nevada Appellate Procedure Rule 5 and certified the central question to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court accepted the certified question, setting the stage for a definitive interpretation of NRS 608.016.

The Nevada Supreme Court’s Ruling

Justice Ron Parraguirre authored the opinion of the Nevada Supreme Court and began by reframing the certified question to ensure a precise answer. The opinion was clear that the Supreme Court would decide only “whether Nevada’s wage-hour laws incorporate the exceptions to compensable ‘work’ that are laid out in the PPA.” Id. at 1-2. That focus on the exceptions drove the Supreme Court’s analysis.

Although Nevada’s wage laws often “mirror the FLSA,” the Supreme Court emphasized that its prior decisions have repeatedly refused to follow federal law where the texts diverge. Amazon.com Servs., LLC v. Malloy, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 50, 2025 WL 3032215, at 2 (2025). This case, the Supreme Court explained, was one of those moments. The PPA provides a sweeping “catchall” set of exclusions for any activity deemed preliminary or postliminary. Id. at 4. Nevada’s statutes, by contrast, contain only “narrow and specific exceptions,” such as those enumerated in NRS 608.0195 and NRS 608.215. Id.

The Supreme Court stressed the structural mismatch: the PPA creates a broad outer boundary of non-compensable time, whereas Nevada’s Legislature chose not to include any analogous, general preliminary-activity exemption. The opinion makes the legislative intent point explicit: “The plain language of NRS Chapter 608 does not evince legislative intent to mirror the PPA, and the PPA’s broad exceptions do not correspond with the narrow and specific exceptions Nevada provides.” Id.

The Supreme Court also observed that the Legislature has amended Nevada’s wage-and-hour provisions “on multiple occasions” to align certain terms with federal law when it wished to do so—yet it never added PPA-style text or referred to preliminary or postliminary activities. Id. at *5. In other words, the Legislature knew how to adopt the PPA and simply chose not to.

Based on this textual and structural analysis, the Supreme Court answered the certified question “in the negative.” Id. Nevada has not incorporated the PPA’s exceptions, and employers cannot rely on them to avoid paying for required pre-shift tasks.

Notably, the Supreme Court did not resolve whether COVID testing is necessarily compensable in every scenario. Instead, the ruling’s effect is to eliminate the PPA as a categorical shield. Whether a specific pre-shift activity is compensable will depend on Nevada’s own definition of “work,” not federal carve-outs.

Implications for Employers

Although Malloy was quickly overtaken by legislative action, its interpretive significance cannot be overstated. For roughly two weeks, Malloy dramatically broadened the scope of compensable time under Nevada law by removing the federal preliminary/postliminary framework entirely. Employer groups immediately warned that the ruling could expose businesses to retroactive claims for any mandatory pre- or post-shift activity — health screenings, safety checks, clock-in delays, security gates, equipment pickups, or similar tasks.

In mid-November 2025, the Nevada Legislature enacted SB 8, expressly adding PPA-style exemptions into NRS Chapter 608 and applying them retroactively. The Governor signed it into law on November 20, and it took immediate effect. That legislation largely neutralized the backward-looking exposure that Malloy might have created. However, SB 8 itself carries a 2029 sunset, meaning Nevada may revisit the issue in future sessions. If SB 8 lapses or is modified, Malloy’s reasoning will again guide courts in interpreting Chapter 608.

Even with SB 8 in place, Malloy is a consequential decision for Nevada employers. It clarifies that Nevada’s wage statutes stand on their own terms and will not absorb federal exemptions absent explicit legislative action. Employers with Nevada operations should ensure that any required pre- or post-shift activity is properly categorized, measured, and recorded — and should keep a close eye on the evolving legislative environment as the 2029 sunset approaches.

September 25, 2025September 25, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

What The Click?: Third Circuit Finds No Standing For Class Complaining Of Website Operator Monitoring Clicks

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Anna Sheridan, and Shannon Noelle

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 7, 2025, in an opinion authored by Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision in Cook v. GameStop, Inc., 148 F.4th 153 (3d Cir. 2025), affirming the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania’s dismissal for lack of standing of a putative class action asserting privacy causes of action against a website operator monitoring clicks. The Third Circuit found that merely tracking internet users’ browsing time and website interactions — without recording or disclosing sensitive or personal information — fails to constitute the type of concrete injury required to confer Article III standing. The decision is instructive for corporate counsel dealing with privacy issues and defense of class action litigation.

Case Background

Plaintiff Amber Cook (“Cook” or “Plaintiff”) was an internet user that visited GameStop’s website in Pennsylvania. See Cook, 148 F.4th 153, 156. Through third-party vendor Microsoft and its programming script called Clarity, GameStop was tracking internet user’s browsing history and interaction with its website. Id. The script Clarity creates is known as a “session replay code” that aggregates data about how long the user browsed the website, mouse movement, links clicked, scrolling, search bar entries, and products added and removed from the “cart.” Id. The script creates a unique id and profile for each user and recaptures each user’s session through a video which GameStop could review to improve functionality and user experience. Id. The unique ids and profiles do not utilize personally identifying information such as names, addresses, and the like. Id. at 160. GameStop’s website has a privacy policy describing the script and information collected but this policy is “buried at the very bottom of the website.” Id. at 156.

Cook sued GameStop for its use of the Clarity script, alleging that it violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”) and asserting a common law cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion. Cook alleged that the WESCA and privacy tort for intrusion upon seclusion prohibit the interception of electronic communications without prior consent and she suffered an injury in fact “‘‘when her communications with . . . GameStop’s website were intercepted’ by the session replay code.” GameStop moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint at the District Court level pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). See Case No. 2:22-CV-01292, ECF No. 25-27. The District Court granted GameStop’s motion under Rule 12(b)(1) with prejudice and, in the alternative, held that Cook failed to “plead the necessary facts to support her claims for violation of [WESCA] or intrusion upon seclusion.” See Case No. 2:22-CV-01292, ECF No. 45-46. Specifically, the District Court concluded that Cook’s harms were not analogous to the traditional intangible harms recognized by privacy torts because none of the data gathered “could connect her browsing activity to her.” See Case No. 2:22-cCV01292, ECF No. 46, at 8 (emphasis in the original). Cook appealed the District Court’s decision on standing to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit’s Ruling

Reviewing whether Cook’s allegations met the Article III standing threshold de novo, the Third Circuit determined that the appeal concerned only the first element of the analysis, or whether Cook had sufficiently alleged an injury in fact (as opposed to the other requirements of traceability and redressability). The Third Circuit adopted the standard articulated in Barclift and Transunion that — to determine whether a plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury — the framework is whether the harm asserted bears a “close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts — such as physical harm, monetary harm, or various intangible harms including . . . reputational harm.” Id. at 158 (citing Barclift v. Keystone Credit Servs., LLC, 93 F.4th 136, 141, 145 (3d Cir. 2024); TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 417 (2021)).

The Third Circuit clarified that it would not take as “rigid” of an approach as other federal circuits but that it would consider the privacy torts that Cook identified of disclosure of private information and intrusion upon seclusion to determine if the harm she alleges is “the kind of harm caused by the comparator tort[s].” The Third Circuit found that she failed to identify sufficiently concrete harms under either analogy.

Tracking Information That Is Not Personal Or Sensitive Nor Disclosed Publicly Not Sufficient To Allege Concrete Injury

With regard to the disclosure of private information analogy, the Third Circuit found that the information captured by the session replay code — recording clicks, mouse hovers, and search bar searches — was neither sensitive or personal. In support of this conclusion, the Third Circuit reasoned that the disclosure of such information cannot plausibly be said to result in embarrassment or humiliation. Cook did not share her name, contact information, address, or billing information while on GameStop’s website. Further, though Cook alleged that GameStop obtained information about her device and browser and created a unique ID and profile for her to capture the session replay information, she did not allege that GameStop identified her through this information. Id. at 160. Cook alleged only that if a user “eventually identifies themselves” then GameStop could “back-reference all of that user’s other web browsing.” Id. The Third Circuit found these allegations were too hypothetical to meet Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement.

Going one step further, the Third Circuit found that “even assuming the information was the type that could cause Cook humiliation under ‘public scrutiny,’” Cook did not allege that the information was ever publicized or disclosed publicly. Id. Cook alleged only that the information was disclosed to third-party vendor Microsoft, “not the broader public.” Id.

As the information collected was not personal or sensitive, the Third Circuit also rejected Cook’s intrusion upon seclusion analogy. As an additional basis for rejecting this tort analogy, the Third Circuit acknowledged that “[m]ost of us understand that what we do on the Internet is not completely private.” Id. (citation omitted).

The WESCA Does Not Provide A Statutory Avenue For Circumventing The Injury-In-Fact Requirement For Standing

The Third Circuit next considered and rejected Cook’s argument that the WESCA provides a separate avenue to circumvent Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. In making this argument, Cook relied on language in the TransUnion decision that the legislature can “‘elevate harms that exist in the real world’ to make them legally actionable” and went on to claim the WESCA did just that in protecting a “wider range of information” from collection during electronic communications. The Third Circuit disagreed with this logic and reading of the TransUnion decision, determining that the theory “contradicts the fundamental holding of TransUnion” which instructs courts to consider the concrete harm actually alleged by the Plaintiff rather than the “harm the statutory cause of action typically protects against.” Id.at 161 (emphasis added). The Third Circuit analyzed that a statutory violation of the WESCA for tracking web browsing information does not dispense with the Article III standing inquiry and Cook was still required to articulate a harm existing in the “real world” under TransUnion, as legislatures cannot “transform something that is not remotely harmful into something that is.” Id.

Precedent In Which Website Operators Affirmatively Represented They Would Not Track Information Are Not Controlling

The Third Circuit further opined that the Nickelodeon and Google II decisions — which Cook cited in favor of her argument that tracking internet browsing history has been found to constitute a concrete harm — were not controlling. The Third Circuit explained that Nickelodean involved claims that a website operator was collecting minors’ personal information despite affirmatively representing that it would not do so. Id. at 162 (citing In Re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig., 827 F.3d 262, 269 (3d Cir. 2016)). And, similarly, Google II involved allegations that Google bypassed browser privacy settings through the use of browser cookies to track user information. Id. (citing In Re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Priv. Litig., 934 F.3d 316, 321 (3d Cir. 2019) (Google II)). The Third Circuit found that both were instances of affirmative “promises not to” collect information that the website operator collected in any event. Id. Here, by contrast, Cook failed to identify an affirmative representation on the part of GameStop to refrain from tracking user browsing and website usage information.

Current Status of GameStop Action

A mandate was issued on September 12, 2025 transferring the action back to the jurisdiction of the District Court, where the matter is still pending.

Implications for Website Operators Tracking Browsing History and Use:

The Third Circuit has provided a helpful roadmap for website operators — at least in this jurisdiction — that merely tracking clicks and interaction with a website is insufficient to confer standing in federal court to potential plaintiffs challenging such tracking. It is critical that the tracking at issue in GameStop, however, did not collect personal or sensitive information nor disclose the same. GameStop also did not affirmatively represent that it would not track website use and interaction. Website operators would be well-advised to review any website tracking using this rubric and to seek legal advice in the event of doubt or ambiguity.

September 2, 2025September 2, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Virginia Federal Court Slices Away Out-of-State FLSA Claims Against Pizza Company

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Anna Sheridan, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 22, 2025, in Shamburg, et al. v. Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, et al., No. 24-CV-00098, 2025 WL 2431652 (W.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2025), Judge Jasmine Yoon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia partially dismissed a proposed nationwide collective action brought by pizza delivery drivers. Although Plaintiff Chandler Shamburg (“Plaintiff” or “Shamburg”), and other plaintiffs, asserted nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state law claims from multiple jurisdictions, the Court dismissed nearly all of them for lack of personal jurisdiction. This ruling reinforces the growing trend of federal courts willing to apply the Due Process Clause’s protections to expansive FLSA collective actions and underscores the difficulty plaintiffs face in keeping sprawling, multi-state, wage claims altogether in one federal court.

Case Background

In 2024, Shamburg filed a putative class and collective action that alleged that Ayvaz Pizza (“Ayvaz”), a franchisee that “operates an unidentified number of Pizza Hut Franchise Stores within” Virginia, that is neither incorporated in nor has its principal place of business in Virginia, violated the FLSA and various state laws. Id. at *1. They also sued Ayvaz’s owner, Shoukat Dhanani, for this conduct as well. Id.

Shamburg (and, ultimately several other plaintiffs) alleged that both himself, and other drivers, were “required to use their own cars, ensure their cars were legally compliant, pay car-related costs including gasoline expenses, maintenance and part costs, insurance, financing charges, and licensing and registration costs, pay storage costs, cell phone costs, and data charges, and pay for other necessary equipment.” Id. As a result, Shamburg and the out-of-state plaintiffs alleged that their hourly rate of pay dropped below the FLSA’s minimum wage guarantee because these expenses were “kicked back” to Ayvaz. Id. at *1-2. They also brought seventeen state law claims that “assert causes of action from seven different states and invoke both state statutory and common law.” Id. at *8.

But, Ayvaz was no stranger to these issues. It was also recently sued in Garza, et al. v. Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, No. 23-CV-01379 (S.D. Tex.), and Stotesbery, et al. v. Muy Pizza-Tejas, LLC, et al., No. 22-CV-01622 (D. Minn.), based on similar allegations. Based on the existence of these prior two actions, and the presence of the out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims, Ayvaz and its owner moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction (both general and specific), lack of supplemental jurisdiction, and the first-to-file doctrine. Judge Yoon’s decision followed.

The Court’s Ruling

In general, Judge Yoon’s decision was split into four discrete parts — each addressing whether the Court could exercise various forms of jurisdiction over Ayvaz and its owner. For the most part, the Court declined each type of jurisdiction.

General Personal Jurisdiction & Out-Of-State Plaintiffs

First, although it was uncontested that Ayvaz was neither incorporated in nor headquartered out of Virginia, Plaintiffs argued that Ayvaz was subject to general personal jurisdiction in Virginia based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023). In Mallory, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Due Process does not prohibit “a State from requiring an out-of-state corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business there.” Id. at 127. Like the Pennsylvania statute at issue in Mallory, Virginia also has “an out-of-state business registration statute.” Shamburg¸ 2025 WL 2431652, at *5.

Judge Yoon, however, reasoned that “unlike Pennsylvania, Virginia law does not require the out-of-state business to condition its registration on submitting to general personal jurisdiction” consistent with the decisions of several other district courts. Id. Thus, the Court “conclude[d] that, absent explicit consent to jurisdiction in Virginia’s business registration statute” it could not exercise general personal jurisdiction over Ayvaz or its owner.

Specific Jurisdiction & Out-Of-State Plaintiffs

Second, the Court addressed the out-of-state plaintiffs’ argument that the Court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ayvaz as to the out-of-state plaintiffs but disagreed. Judge Yoon weighed in on the pending circuit split regarding the applicability of Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), to FLSA collective actions. The Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits hold that Bristol-Myers applies, whereas the First Circuit stands alone and holds otherwise.

Judge Yoon agreed with “the approach taken by the majority of the Courts of Appeals” and held each plaintiff “must present independent, sufficient bases for the exercise of the court’s specific jurisdiction over that claim.” Id. at *6. Similarly, because none of the plaintiffs alleged facts related to the owner’s minimum contacts with Virginia “beyond the fact that Ayvaz is registered to do business in Virginia and operates an unidentified number of Pizza Hut Franchise Stores,” their claims could not proceed against him either.

The Seventeen State Law Counts

Third, having dismissed the out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims, Judge Yoon declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the seventeen state law counts. The Court observed that “the presence of more subclasses (eight) than states (seven) provides evidence of both complexity and the lack of commonality” that show that the state law claims “would substantially predominate over the FLSA claim.” Id. at *8. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice, leaving only the FLSA claims brought by Virginia-based employees.

The First-To-File Doctrine

Fourth and finally, the Court declined Ayvaz’s request to dismiss the case under the “first-to-file” doctrine due to the existence of the earlier filed suits in Garza and Stotesbury. The first-to-file rule allows a federal court to decline jurisdiction when a substantially similar lawsuit involving the same parties and issues is already pending in another court. Id. at *10. But, the court concluded that the “putative classes and respective issues” in the two prior suits differ enough that the first-to-file rule should not be applied. Id. at *12.

Indeed, “Stotesbery, by design, includes an FLSA claim limited to those who work in Minnesota” and thus did not overlap based on the Court’s ruling. Id. And, the Court declined to apply the first-to-file doctrine to Garza because the “case was settled and dismissed with prejudice” and thus was not pending at the time of the decision. Id. at *10. “Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ complaint will survive the motion to dismiss with respect to the FLSA claim for Plaintiffs who live in or work in Virginia.” Id. at *12.

Implications for Employers

The Shamburg decision demonstrates that courts are increasingly unwilling to allow out-of-state employees to anchor nationwide collective actions against employers without first affording employers certain due process protections. This growing trend prevents employers from having to defend these actions in distant and unfamiliar courts, and forces plaintiffs to bring these actions where these employers are incorporated or headquartered.

With these trends in mind, corporate counsel should continue to monitor this blog for developments because the Bristol-Myers circuit split is sure to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court soon, and if their companies are sued in putative class and collective actions, it is better to prepared in advance for when these important issues are decided.