Category: General

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Kevin E. Vance, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On June 17, 2025, in Smith, et al. v. Costa Del Mar, Inc., No. 18-CV-1011, 2025 WL 1697161 (M.D. Fla. June 17, 2025), Judge Timothy Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) class claim following a multi-million-dollar settlement between the parties due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Although the opinion may seem like a win for the company on its face, this decision only places further limitations on corporate defendants’ ability to access the federal forum and makes it more difficult for such defendants to get a fair trial where class-wide relief is alleged.

Background

Costa Del Mar, Inc. (“Costa”) “is a sunglasses manufacturer that represented to buyers that sunglasses were backed by lifetime warranties.”  Smith v. Miorelli, 93 F.4th 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 2024).  Plaintiffs, who were Costa customers, filed three separate class action lawsuits alleging that the “lifetime warranties required Costa to repair their sunglasses either free-of-charge or for a nominal fee.”  Id.  Rather than repairing the sunglasses for a nominal fee, the plaintiffs alleged that Costa charged them, in some cases, up to $105.18 to repair their sunglasses which was paid by the plaintiffs.

After years of litigation, the plaintiffs ultimately filed an amended complaint “to facilitate a settlement agreement that would resolve the claims in all three cases” based on a MMWA class claim.  Id. at 1210.   To that end, the parties moved for approval of a class action settlement that would have provided “over $60 million of value to the class in the form of product vouchers and attorneys’ fees” as well as injunctive relief.  Id. (quotations omitted).  The district court preliminarily approved the parties’ settlement agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).  But, the preliminary approval order was not the end of the story.

Several objectors challenged the district court’s order on the basis that “any award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel must be based on the value of product vouchers that are actually redeemed, not the value of vouchers that would be distributed.”  Miorelli, 93 F.4th at 1211.  The district court, however, overruled these objections and awarded class counsel $8 million dollars in attorneys’ fees. 

The objectors appealed and argued, inter alia, that the district court abused its discretion to approve a settlement for injunctive relief because the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing under the U.S. Constitution.  As the objectors saw it, the plaintiffs did not have an ongoing injury-in-fact, sufficient to support injunctive relief, where they had already paid the fees for their sunglasses.  The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the objectors and reversed the district court’s preliminary approval order.  In so doing, it also noted that “[t]he parties have raised other jurisdictional issues that the district court should consider in the first instance” because the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) potentially “does not provide an alternative basis for a federal court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a case brought under the MMWA.“  Id. at 1213, n. 8.  So, the case was remanded to the district court for further consideration of that question.

The Court’s Opinion

On remand, the district court had the “unenviable task of advising the parties that, notwithstanding the nearly seven years of litigation that have transpired since this case was filed, it is due to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”  Smith, 2025 WL 1697161, at *1.

The district court noted that “[t]he MMWA vests federal district courts with subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the Act.”  Id. at *2.  But, a district court only has federal question jurisdiction under the MMWA if there are more than 100 named plaintiffs.  Id. at *2 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)).  Because plaintiffs could not satisfy this requirement, they relied solely on the federal court’s ability to hear the case under CAFA.

Ordinarily, a plaintiff can a bring a class action in federal court, that otherwise must be heard in state court, where the requirements of CAFA are met.  Subject to some exceptions, these requirements are that there must be: (a) at least 100 class members; (b) that there is minimal diversity between the parties; and (c) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million dollars.  28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

The MMWA often presents a rare exception to that rule.  As the district court explained, the Third and Ninth Circuits, as well as numerous federal district courts, have “determined that CAFA does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction for an MMWA claim.”  Smith, 2025 WL 1697161, *2.  The district court noted that this opinion is not shared unanimously by its sister districts, but nonetheless agreed “that CAFA does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.” Id.

As a result, the district court held that “because there are fewer than 100 named plaintiffs” and the CAFA was not an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction “plaintiff fails to meet the federal court jurisdictional requirements.”  Id. at *3.  Accordingly, after seven years of litigation and after a settlement agreement had been reached, the district court simply dismissed the case outright.

Implications For Companies

On its face, the Smith decision may seem like a great result for the company in this litigation because, after all, the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety which is presumably what the company wanted all along.  But, a more nuanced analysis reveals hidden traps for companies faced with class action litigation.

The result of this decision is not that this claim will never be heard at all, but rather that the case will not proceed in federal court.  Indeed, the Smith plaintiff explicitly “stated he intended to refile this suit in state court if the Court determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction.”  Id. at *3, n. 6.

In general, it is not uncommon for a company to “prefer[] the federal courts because it fears a corporate defendant . . . will not get a fair trial in state court.”  See, e.g., Hosein v. CDL West 45th Street, LLC, No. 12 Civ. 06903, 2013 WL 4780051, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2013).  The Smith opinion adds a barrier to corporate defendants to avail themselves of the federal forum, and even goes so far as to place additional barriers on a defendant’s ability to settle claims against it.

If corporate counsel is concerned about their organizations being dragged into a class action, in a less-than-favorable state forum, then they should continue to monitor this blog for potential options or contact experienced outside counsel to discuss such matters.

By Shannon Noelle

On June 9-10, NYU hosted its 77^th annual conference on Labor & Employment Law, a non-partisan forum for stakeholders and experts to discuss current labor and employment policy and law.  We were privileged to attend the conference as an invited guest of sponsor and leading industry expert firm Resolution Economics. 

The conference spanned two days, with keynote addresses from Honorable Jonathan Snare, Deputy Solicitor of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, and Marvin E Kaplan the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chair.  The conference featured panels on topics such as the US Workforce, Reimagining Labor in a Conservative Era, Reimagining Civil Service, Federal Labor Preemption of State Captive Audience, Just Cause and Sectoral Bargaining Laws, Equal Access to Justice Reform Act, Facilitating Lawful Immigration (with speaker Ted Chiappari, Partner at Duane Morris,), Labor Union Political Activism, Future of the National Labor Relations Act, Restructuring the NLRB, AI Issues, Emerging Issues in Employment Arbitration, Employment Discrimination Law and Disparate Impact, and Restrictive Covenants.  

Future of the Department of Labor

Deputy Solicitor Snare opened the conference stating that the DOL’s new perspective is “personnel as policy” indicating that the Department has onboarded individuals with extensive and varied experience to bring insight and perspective to the Department’s new enforcement directives.  He stated that the Department’s enforcement priorities include “helping employers minimize unintentional errors,” child labor law enforcement, and speedy recovery of back way.  With regard to the test for independent contractor status, the DOL will rely on Fact Sheet #13 containing the “economic reality” framework and the 2019 Opinion Letter on Independent Contractors and Virtual Marketplace Companies.   In analyzing joint employer status, Deputy Solicitor Snare advised practitioners to look at the analysis in effect under the prior Trump administration for guidance which set out a 4-factor control test.  Solicitor Snare indicated that the overtime rule implemented in 2024 and joint employer analysis are currently under review by the Department. 

On the topic of OSHA enforcement priorities, Solicitor Snare referenced the recent Sea World fine and citation from 2024 for $16,5550 after a trainer was injured by a killer whale during a training session.   Solicitor Snare discussed the general duty clause in connection with this citation, found in Section 5(a(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, requiring employers to furnish a place of employment free from recognized hazards that cause or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees, stating that this duty is not qualified under common law by the assumption of the risk or contributory negligence doctrine. 

There was also discussion of the Department’s implementation on May 15, 2025 of the non-enforcement policy regarding the 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).   Solicitor Snare stated that this policy would “cut regulatory red tape” and give workers better access to mental health and substance abuse treatment as compliance with the former law was “burdensome.”   And, finally, Solicitor Snare discussed the Department’s initiative to improve pharmaceutical pricing transparency and provide Crypto guidance.  

Future of the NLRA and Restructuring the NLRB

The panel on the future of the NLRA and restructuring the NLRB advocated for restructuring the Board as opposed to dissolution, acknowledging that Board law on the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) changing with each administration lacks clarity and consistency but also noting the utility of a quasi-judicial body continuing to provide guidance and decisions on labor disputes.  The panel discussed the upcoming decision regarding President Trump’s removal of Democrat Board member Gwynne Wilcox without cause—which reduced the Board to two members lacking the necessary 3-member quorum to issue decisions as to unfair labor practices—as likely to redefine Board authority and the Presidential executive power across the federal government.  The panel concluded that, no matter how the issue is decided, it presents an opportunity for both labor and management to consider how to refashion the Board into an exclusively adjudicatory agency likely to pass constitutional requirements and, at the same time, reduce the incidence of policy oscillation that has plagued the agency for decades. 

Acting General Counsel for the NLRB William Cowen expressed cautious optimism that a recent proposal to fund the agency at 4.7% below its current level would be “adequate for us to do our jobs” and expressed that he sees “ a way through this.” 

Samuel Estreicher, NYU Law professor, Roger King, HR Policy Association senior counsel, and David Sherwyn, Cornell University professor, discussed their proposal for restructuring the NLRB (recently detailed in a paper published by the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law) refashioning the board as a six-member court consisting of two Democrats, two Republicans, and two nonpartisans.  Further requirements for board members under this proposal would be that they cannot have represented labor or management interests for a six-year period prior to nomination to the Board to show a “propensity for independence.”  This requirement is to ameliorate the policy oscillation and lack of consistency in board law and to lend credibility to the agency.  The article authors indicated that they have gotten reasonable interest and traction from lawmakers and are actively in discussions regarding their proposal. 

Developments in AI

On the topic of AI, panelists discussed the proliferation of generative AI in the last 18 months which is used across the employment life cycle in sourcing, recruiting, predicting high potential employees, employees likely to leave, and even AI that generates job descriptions.   Experts indicated that the federal regulatory landscape is evolving with the Trump administration expected to roll out an action plan by the end of July.  Several recent reports discuss a Trump administration proposal, included in a House-passed budget reconciliation bill, that would implement a 10-year federal preemption or moratorium on state and local AI laws and regulations.  Thus, federal regulation of the AI space is expected to be on the radar of practitioners and experts alike.  

Implications for Companies

Employers must stay compliant with existing law (despite shifting prosecutorial priorities current labor and employment laws remain in effect) and monitor legal developments on the horizon.  Employers must remain vigilant in their compliance efforts and seek legal guidance for assistance in navigating this rapidly changing legal landscape.

Duane Morris partners Jennifer Riley and Jerry Maatman were recognized in the latest 2025 edition of the Mondaq Thought Leadership Awards. Riley won the top award as the #1 rated thought leader in the Data Protection and Privacy space in the United States. Maatman finished in the #2 slot. The rankings showcase the most popular articles across 16 areas of law published by authors around the globe between October 2024 and March 2025. We’d like to express our gratitude to our loyal blog readers and podcast listeners for this distinction and your continued support.

Jennifer Riley’s video episode “DMCAR Trend #7 – Data Breaches Gives Rise To An Unprecedented Number Of Class Action Filings” was ranked #1 across all data protection content on the platform.

Ranked #2 was Jerry Maatman’s launch announcement of Duane Morris’ Data Breach Class Action Review – 2025. Bookmark or download our virtual data breach desk reference, which is fully searchable and viewable from any device.

Stay tuned – coming soon to the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog is our mid-year class action report including key analysis of developments in the data privacy class action landscape.

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., has long been a focus of class action litigation. Since the TCPA was enacted 30 years ago, the methods and technology that businesses use to engage and interact with customers has evolved and changed. The trend of states enacting or amending their own mini-TCPAs shows no signs of slowing down, making this subject area a likely continued focus for the plaintiffs’ class action bar in years to come.

To that end, the class action team at Duane Morris is pleased to present the 2025 edition of the TCPA Class Action Review. We hope it will demystify some of the complexities of TCPA class action litigation and keep corporate counsel updated on the ever-evolving nuances of these issues.  We hope this book – manifesting the collective experience and expertise of our class action defense group – will assist our clients by identifying developing trends in the case law and offering practical approaches in dealing with TCPA class action litigation.

Click here to bookmark or download a copy of the TCPA Class Action Review – 2025 e-book.

Stay tuned for more TCPA class action analysis coming soon on our weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associates Jesse Stavis and Anshul Agrawal with their discussion of the key trends analyzed in the 2025 edition of the ERISA Class Action Review, including analysis of two major rulings and their significant impact on ERISA litigation in 2025.

Stay tuned for the publication of the ERISA Class Action Review on Tuesday, March 25.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Samsung Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome to our listeners. Thank you for being here on our weekly podcast series, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner with Duane Morris, and joining me today are my colleagues, Jesse and Anshul, and we’re here to talk about Episode 93 on class action issues involving ERISA. Welcome, gentlemen.

Jesse Stavis: Thanks, Jerry, always happy to be part of the podcast.

Anshul Agrawal: Yeah, thank you so much, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on our podcast we’re going to highlight our publication of the second edition of the Duane Morris ERISA Class Action Review. Jesse, can you share with our listeners a little bit about this publication?

Jesse: Absolutely. The surge of class action litigation filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, over the last several years definitely persisted in 2024. Class action litigators in the plaintiffs’ bar continued to primarily focus on challenges to ERISA fiduciaries’ management of 401(k) and other retirement plans. The class action team at Duane Morris is pleased to present the ERISA Class Action Review – 2025, which analyzes the key ERISA-related rulings and developments in 2024, as well as the significant legal decisions and trends impacting this type of class action litigation for 2025. We hope the companies will benefit from this resource in their compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: Well, certainly the subject matter of the book in terms of the key rulings in 2024 showed, I think, a mixed bag of results for both the defense bar and plaintiffs. Anshul, let’s talk a little bit about what you have identified as the biggest issues over the past 12 months, and that would be the increasing amount of class action litigation over 401(k) forfeiture issues. It’s certainly an area of concern for our clients, and we’re seeing some major developments. Could you share with our listeners your view of kind of the heart of these sorts of claims?

Anshul: Yeah, absolutely. So, the central issue here revolves around how employers handled forfeited 401(k) contributions. So specifically, the employers matching contributions when an employee leaves before they’re fully vested. Normally, if an employee leaves early, they forfeit these unvested funds, and many companies have been using this money to offset their own contributions in future years. However, there’s been a shift, because in 2024 we saw several class actions challenging this practice with plaintiffs, arguing that this forfeited money should instead be used to cover the administrative costs of the plan rather than reducing the employer’s future contributions. These claims have made it past motions to dismiss in several cases, including Perez-Cruet v. Qualcomm and Rodriguez v. Intuit. So, courts are increasingly finding that these claims may be valid under ERISA’s fiduciary duty standards.

Jerry: My take is that these cases are having real world consequences for people at companies that are in charge of managing 401(k) programs going forward. Jesse, do you think that these sorts of lawsuits are going to have lasting effects on the way in which employers treat these sorts of funds?

Jesse: Oh, definitely. The outcome of these cases could set new precedents. Courts have been indicating that companies might be violating their fiduciary duties if they’re not using forfeited funds for the benefit of plan participants. For example, in Perez-Cruet, the court found that Qualcomm’s use of forfeited funds for current employees’ accounts rather than administrative costs may have been a breach of fiduciary duty. Now this case, along with others like it, shows that companies could face real risks if they continue using forfeited funds solely to offset their own contributions. What’s particularly important here is the courts are saying that even if companies follow the plan’s documentation, they still have a duty to act in the best interest of the participants. This could definitely lead to a shift in how companies structure their 401(k) plans.

Jerry: I think it’s fascinating that we’re dealing with a statute that’s more than six decades old, but we’re bumping up against issues that have never been decided. Another thing that comes to my mind is the impact of socially and environmentally conscious investing, or what’s called ESG investing. And the big huge decision this year in the Spence v. American Airlines case. Anshul, can you comment on your take in terms of what was going on in that particular ruling?

Anshul: Yeah, sure. So, in the Spence case, a plaintiff challenged American Airlines’ investment decisions in the company’s 401(k) plan. The plaintiff argued that the plan’s fiduciaries breached their duties by selecting underperforming ESG funds and by choosing managers who prioritized these types of environmental and social goals over profitability. What’s notable here is that the plaintiff wasn’t just challenging the individual investments, but also the fund managers themselves for their ESG focus. The court found these claims plausible, allowing the case to move forward. So, this decision definitely has the potential to change how fiduciaries view ESG factors in their investment strategies, particularly when considering ERISA’s duty of prudence. If courts continue to allow these types of claims to proceed, it could lead to greater scrutiny of ESG investments in retirement plans.

Jerry: That to me is quite a headline and something that’s incredibly important to corporations and our clients to the extent that many are focused on ESG considerations, and this and the court’s ruling. That that might be a breach of fiduciary duties, seems to me to be a reordering of the playing field and the risks and compliance strategies when you’re looking in this area. Jesse, what would be your take on how this is going to play out in 2025

Jesse: Well, Jerry, I think that what makes Spence so interesting is that it highlights this tension between traditional profit-driven investing on the one hand, and socially conscious investments on the other. Now, in Spence, the court seemed to accept the argument that if ESG funds systematically underperform, fiduciaries could be seen as breaching their duty of prudence by investing in it. This opens up a new avenue for plaintiffs to challenge fiduciaries, and it’s something employers and investment managers will need to keep an eye on in the future. Now, we also saw some shifting regulatory perspectives here, especially with the Department of Labor’s rule allowing fiduciaries to consider ESG factors which is now under challenge. The Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision which overturned Chevron deference could have significant implications for how courts evaluate these kinds of rules, and it might lead to more restrictive interpretations of fiduciary duties in the ESG context.

Jerry: Anshul, do you think that the Spence case is kind of a demarcation point where you’re going to see an increased focus by the plaintiffs’ bar and bringing class actions over this issue of putting notions other than profit first, and that that can translate into a breach of fiduciary duty?

Anshul: Yeah, I mean, that’s definitely possible. I think if other courts follow the lead of the Northern District of Texas, then we could see a rise in sort of these ESG-related lawsuits, particularly against employers or plan managers who prioritize these types of factors over pure financial performance. If more plaintiffs succeed in these claims, it could lead to more cautious approaches by fiduciaries when considering these ESG factors.

Jerry: I’ve always thought the business model of the plaintiffs’ class action bar is file a case, certify the case, then monetize the case by securing settlements. And 2024 certainly was a dramatic year when you talk about class action settlements. What about in the ERISA space in terms of how the plaintiffs’ bar did in taking down large-scale settlements?

Jesse: Well, Jerry, plaintiffs did very well in securing high dollar settlements in 2024, although not quite as well as in 2023. In 2024, the top 10 ERISA class action settlements totaled $413.3 million. This was a drop from 2023, when the top 10 settlements totaled $580.5 million.

Jerry: That’s still a lot of money, and that’s only the top 10, so, it dramatically illustrates the risk and compliance stakes for corporations in the ERISA class action space.

Well, thank you, gentlemen, for joining us on this week’s Class Action Weekly Wire and for providing us and lending us assistance in navigating the area of ERISA class actions, which is certainly at the top of the agenda for most corporations in terms of compliance activity.

Jesse: Thanks for having me, Jerry, and thanks, as always, to all the listeners.

Anshul: Thank you so much, Jerry, and thank you to everyone for tuning into the Weekly Wire

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

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On March 13, 2025, in International Rights Advocates v. Mars Inc. et al., No. 1:24-CV-00894 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2025),  Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the lawsuit filed by International Rights Advocates (IRA) against Mars Inc., Cargill Inc., and Mondelez International Inc. was not properly removed as it did not meet the “amount in controversy” prong of diversity citizenship and could not be aggregated. At the same time, the Court denied IRA’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, finding that the removal was not objectively unreasonable, as there had not yet been any “’clear, controlling case law from the D.C. Circuit on non-aggregation in the DCCPPA [D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act] context.” Id. at 20. The decision melted away the companies’ hopes of dodging local jurisdiction and set the stage for a potentially bittersweet legal battle.

Case Background

IRA filed this lawsuit in 2023, claiming that Mars, Cargill, and Mondelez sugarcoated their efforts to prevent child labor in their cocoa supply chains, and mislead consumers about the ethical sourcing of their chocolate products. IRA then filed an Amended Complaint alleging only misrepresentation in violation of the DCCPPA, invoking the private attorney general or representative-action provision, which authorizes a public interest organization to bring an action challenging an unlawful trade practice on behalf of itself and the “general public.” IRA sought an injunction requiring the defendants to correct their allegedly misleading public statements. The defendants then removed the case to federal court, arguing that the cost of compliance with an injunction (product labeling, public messaging, or both) met the monetary threshold required for federal jurisdiction. However, the Court did not buy into that argument wholesale.

The Ruling in International Rights Advocates v. Mars, Inc.

Judge Lamberth ruled that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the financial stakes met the standard for federal jurisdiction. He found that, rather than counting the total compliance costs, the amount should be divided among the affected population. More importantly, this case clearly set out a standard that a representative action under the DCCPPA brought on behalf of the general public cannot aggregate damages by the total costs combined to the defendants. This case follows precedent set in Breakman v. AOL LLC, when the court held that compliance cost could be used to determine the amount in controversy in an action where separate and distinct claims are presented on behalf of multiple parties only when the cost running to each plaintiff meets the amount in controversy requirement.545 F. Supp. 2d 96, 106 (D.D.C. 2008).This led Judge Lamberth to remand the case back to the D.C. Superior Court, where the chocolatiers will have to litigate the representative action.

Implications For Companies

This ruling serves as cautionary tale for employers hoping to whisk cases away to federal court by piling on compliance costs. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing how these figures are calculated. For companies facing consumer protection claims, this decision signals that removing cases to federal court will not always be a piece of cake. Employers must be prepared for cases to remain in state or local court where procedural rules might not be as favorable.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Courtney L. Baird

Duane Morris Takeaway: Within the vast realm of class action litigation, consumer fraud class actions remain at the forefront. Consumer fraud class actions typically involve a class of consumers who believe they were participating in a legitimate business transaction, however, due to a merchant or company’s alleged deceptive or fraudulent practices, the consumers were actually being defrauded. A wide variety of conduct gives rise to consumer fraud claims. For example, if a business or merchant makes misleading statements about a retail product’s origin, quality, or potential use, over-exaggerates a product’s benefits, imposes classic bait-and-switch tactics on consumers – wherein consumers are forced to make decisions based on inaccurate or incomplete information – or charges fees or surcharges that are unrelated to the subject of the merchant’s transaction with the consumer, a claim for consumer fraud will arise because these actions may harm consumers.

Every state has consumer protection laws, and consumer fraud class actions require courts to analyze these statutes both with respect to plaintiffs’ claims, and also with respect to choice of law analyses when a complaint seeks to impose liability upon multiple states’ consumer protection laws.

To that end, the class action team at Duane Morris is pleased to present a new publication – the 2025 edition of the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review. We hope it will demystify some of the complexities of consumer fraud class action litigation and keep corporate counsel updated on the ever-evolving nuances of these issues.  We hope this book – manifesting the collective experience and expertise of our class action defense group – will assist our clients by identifying developing trends in the case law and offering practical approaches in dealing with consumer fraud class action litigation.

Click here to bookmark or download a copy of the Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2025 eBook.

Stay tuned for more consumer fraud class action analysis coming soon on our weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jennifer Riley and Shireen Wetmore and special counsel Eden Anderson with their discussion of the key trends analyzed in the 2025 edition of the Private Attorneys General Act Review. Litigation brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) poses unique challenges for employers operating in California, and 2024 was no exception; the past year saw major developments in the legislative reform of the PAGA as well as significant rulings pre- and post-reform shaping the landscape for these types of representative actions in 2025.

Bookmark or download the Private Attorneys General Act Review e-book here, which is fully searchable and accessible from any device.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Samsung Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.

Episode Transcript

Jennifer Riley: Welcome to our listeners. Thank you for being here again for our weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jennifer Riley, partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today are Shireen Wetmore and Eden Anderson. Thank you so much for being on the podcast today, guys.

Shireen Wetmore: Thank you. Jen, happy to be part of the podcast.

Eden Anderson: Thanks, Jen. I’m glad to be here.

Jennifer: So, today on the podcast we are discussing the recent publication of this year’s edition of the Duane Morris Private Attorneys General Act (or PAGA) Review. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Shireen, can you start by telling our listeners a little bit about the publication?

Shireen: Absolutely, Jen. As a quick refresher for our audience, California’s Private Attorneys General Act is a statute that authorizes employees to step into the shoes of the California Labor Commissioner and sue their employers for civil penalties under the Labor Code. As has been the case for really the past decade, claims filed under the PAGA continue to be among the most popular filed in California wage and hour matters. Frequently, these claims are preferred by plaintiffs over class actions because of the limited standing requirements and the ability for plaintiffs to bring class-like representative claims without class certification requirements, and the ability to avoid removal to federal court.

The PAGA reforms in June of last year are starting to change how these cases are litigated and when they’re brought. but by all accounts, 2024 was a very active year on the PAGA litigation front, and to assist with understanding what this means for employers facing PAGA claims, Duane Morris has released the Duane Morris PAGA Review – 2025, the latest edition of this annual publication. It analyzes key PAGA rulings and litigation developments in 2024, and the significant trends that are apt to impact these types of representative actions in 2025. So, we hope that companies and employers will benefit from this resource as they work to keep up with these evolving laws and standards.

Jennifer: Great, thank you so much for that overview, Shireen. Eden, what are some of the key takeaways from the publication in regard to PAGA litigation in 2024?

Eden: Yeah, according to data maintained by California’s Department of Industrial Relations, the number of PAGA notices filed with the LWDA has increased exponentially over the past two decades, and was the highest number ever in 2024. With that said, we saw legislative change to PAGA in July of 2024. The amendments to PAGA now provide employers with greater ability to cure violations and avoid litigation, caps on penalties that can be imposed, requirements for PAGA cases to be manageable, and limits on statutory standing so that a PAGA plaintiff can now only seek penalties for violations that they personally suffered and which affected other employees. We’re just starting to see how those amendments are affecting PAGA litigation, but we anticipate they won’t stop the plaintiffs’ bar from continuing to pursue these claims in droves.

Jennifer: Interesting, and this area is certainly evolving quickly. Shireen, can you tell our listeners about some of the developments that occurred during 2024 in particular?

Shireen: As Eden said, the PAGA reforms significantly modified PAGA, and they will impact both how and when employees bring these claims, and how employers will respond to them. But there are thousands and thousands of pre-reform PAGA claims that are still in the pipeline, and that will be subject to some of the significant rulings from 2024. So in 2024, we saw development of a new strategy that became significantly more popular amongst plaintiffs following the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Adolph v. Uber. And that’s the case which addressed the arbitration of individual PAGA claims and held that so long as an employee asserts that they’re an aggrieved employee, they maintain standing to pursue a representative claim in court under PAGA. Adolph clarified that should the employee lose their individual claim in arbitration, the employee would also lose standing to maintain a representative PAGA claim in court. However, if the employee prevailed in arbitration, or settled their individual PAGA claim, they would maintain standing to pursue non-individual representative PAGA claims on behalf of all other “aggrieved employees.” What we saw in 2024, in reaction to those holdings, was that plaintiffs began filing PAGA claims with only representative components purporting to waive their individual PAGA claims as a workaround. These so-called “headless” claims seemingly go against the ruling in Adolph and other cases.

Jennifer: Thank you so much, Shireen. How has that “headless” PAGA strategy played out for the plaintiffs in terms of well has it worked?

Eden: Well, there’s been an update in this area, even after publication of our book. Back in April of 2024, the California Court of Appeal held, in Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, that representative PAGA claims could still be maintained even without an actionable individual PAGA claim so long as the plaintiff alleges he or she suffered a Labor Code violation. And as Shireen mentioned, the plaintiffs’ bar began relying on Balderas to support their strategy to avoid arbitration, and that strategy was to disclaim individual recovery in PAGA cases. But then, in late December 2024, the Court of Appeal reversed course and held in Leeper v. Shipt that a PAGA action necessarily includes both representative and individual PAGA claims and that a plaintiff cannot disclaim individual relief to avoid arbitration. And this is an issue that, ultimately, the California Supreme Court may need to weigh in on.

Jennifer: Thanks so much, Eden. Let’s talk briefly about the Turrietta case. On August 1, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion that had major ramifications for employers in PAGA actions, particularly where there’s parallel litigation pending. Shireen, can you walk us through the key points of that decision?

Shireen: Absolutely. The key issue in Turrieta v. Lyft was whether plaintiffs in separate PAGA actions could intervene, object to a settlement, or challenge the judgment in another parallel, as you said, PAGA matter—specifically in Turrieta, the parties had reached a settlement and the proposed intervenor plaintiffs sought to inject themselves into the case. The court ruled that, as non-parties to the settlement, the other plaintiffs did not have standing to intervene or object to the settlement. This means that an employer should be able to settle one PAGA action without fear of interference from other plaintiffs who may be pursuing similar, parallel claims. Such settlements will still require court approval, which is the backstop to ensure there are no shenanigans in the settlement process.

Jennifer: Wow, that’s a pretty big ruling. Eden, what do you think that ruling means for employers facing multiple overlapping PAGA actions, as so many employers are in California right now?

Eden: Yeah, Jen, it’s a game changer. Employers now have more leeway to settle PAGA claims without worrying about other plaintiffs from different cases coming in and objecting to or trying to disrupt the settlement. The Turrieta court emphasized that having multiple plaintiffs intervening would complicate the litigation and hinder the enforcement of labor laws, which is exactly what PAGA was designed to avoid. And this decision really solidifies an employer’s ability to resolve PAGA cases without interference from other plaintiffs.

Jennifer: So, this decision seems like a win for employers. Let’s shift gears to Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, which may be described as not a win for employers. The court issued another important ruling in 2024 – what did the court decide in that case, and why does it matter?

Eden: Yeah, in Estrada, the California Supreme Court addressed whether trial courts can dismiss PAGA claims if they’re too “unwieldy” and not “manageable.” The case involved a large class of employees, and the trial court decertified the class and then dismissed the PAGA claims for lack of manageability. The California Supreme Court held that trial courts do not have inherent authority to dismiss PAGA claims due to lack of manageability. And what that means is that—for PAGA cases that were filed before the recent legislative amendments—employers can no longer argue that a PAGA case should be dismissed because it’s just too complex or unmanageable. However, as I mentioned earlier, for newly filed PAGA cases, the recent amendments recognize and codify a manageability defense.

Jennifer: Thanks, Eden. Shireen – do you think that decision will change the way courts can handle PAGA cases moving forward?

Shireen: Yes, definitely, I think it will, in a couple of ways that remain to be seen. The Supreme Court clarified, as Eden said, that the manageability of a case isn’t a valid reason to dismiss a PAGA claim under “old PAGA.” Unlike class action cases, pre-reform PAGA suits are not bound by the same requirements for manageability. And so, Estrada essentially removed that key defense for employers trying to get out of these unwieldy PAGA actions and makes it harder to avoid facing the full scope of PAGA claims. However, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for prudence from plaintiffs and suggested that plaintiffs need to be careful in how they represent their claims. The result is likely twofold: for pre-reform cases, there may be more scrutiny of the sufficiency of the notice itself, which is now the primary method for managing the scope of pre-reform PAGA claims. Similarly, the reforms from the legislature which explicitly include manageability may influence how courts review the intended scope of the pre-reform PAGA claims. And certainly, we anticipate that manageability will be a key tool for employers in addressing post-reform PAGA claims.

Jennifer: Great insights into these rulings, ladies, and it seems like 2024 was a pivotal year for PAGA law in California. We will continue to track all of these important PAGA rulings and developments and share the implications with our loyal blog readers. Thanks to Shireen and Eden  for being here today, and thank you to our listeners for tuning in. Please stop by the blog for a free copy of the PAGA Review e-book.

Eden: Thank you for having me, Jen, and thank you, listeners.

Shireen: Thanks so much, everybody. See you next time.