A California judge granted final approval Monday of Disney’s $43.25 million class action settlement with over 15,000 female midlevel managers over allegations the entertainment giant paid them less than their male colleagues.

At a morning hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle read aloud an order granting final approval of the settlement, which stems from a 2019 suit alleging that the company systematically paid female employees in California less than men for substantially similar jobs, regularly passed women over for promotion and loaded them with extra work without providing additional pay.

The class size is 15,241, according to the motion for final approval submitted by the class. 

. . .

The workers are represented by Lori Andrus of Andrus Anderson LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, Christine E. Webber and Phoebe Wolfe of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and James Kan and Stephanie E. Tilden of Dadrian Ho Kan & Lee.

UBS’ investment banking division can’t shed claims that it manipulated trading prices for a software company by means of spoofing, or placing trades it later canceled, though a Manhattan federal judge on Friday tossed the software company’s allegations relating to the alleged scheme’s long-term effect on its trading prices.

In a partial dismissal order, U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho of the Southern District of New York found that the company, Phunware Inc., had failed to show in the latest version of its complaint that the alleged trading price manipulation had what Phunware described as “a long-term adverse effect on the market price of [Phunware] stock.”

“Phunware’s allegations with respect to such purported long-term effects … are too conclusory to suffice on a motion to dismiss,” Judge Ho said Friday.

However, he noted that certain claims about the short-term effect of the spoofing, “when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient at this stage.”

. . .

Phunware is represented by Laura H. Posner, Michael B. Eisenkraft and Raymond M. Sarola of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

One month after the U.S. Supreme Court hindered judges’ power to universally pause federal policies, hundreds of public interest lawyers took a crash course on using class actions to sue the president.

The June decision in Trump v. CASA had found courts could only grant relief to named parties in a case, but suggested that policies could still be paused on a nationwide basis through class action litigation — a procedurally complex process by which representative plaintiffs can sue on behalf of all similarly situated people.

And so in July, the advocacy group Democracy 2025 held a training for its coalition of more than 500 organizations that call themselves the “united legal frontline” in challenging President Donald Trump’s controversial policies in court.

Joe Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC — who has worked as a class action litigator for four decades and sits on the Judicial Conference of the United States’ Advisory Committee on Civil Rules — led a webinar on Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the class action process.

Sellers says he prepared an hourlong program on class actions after he was told that many policy litigators “know a lot about a lot of areas, but they’re not very familiar with this [type of litigation].” He explained to them the requirements of Rule 23’s various subsections, what the CASA decision did and did not decide, and how to avoid the yearslong delay typical of the class approval process.

“Here, where you’re challenging a discrete governmental action that has an imminent effect on a group of people … the pursuit of class claims can be framed in a way that is very lean,” he told Law360. “You convey to the court an interest in moving as quickly as possible to get a class certified, along with the relief that you’re seeking.”

Class actions involving public policy are nothing new. They hearken to the modern origins of Rule 23 — revisions made in 1966 with the Civil Rights Movement in mind. And even before the CASA opinion altered the litigation landscape, class actions played a growing role in lawsuits seeking to stop Trump’s policies. But now that the high court has pointed to class actions as a vehicle for such claims, the administration might seek new ways to block class certification.

. . .

Class actions do seem like the simplest way to replicate the relief provided by universal injunctions, Sellers said, and “on the face of it, this doesn’t sound like a major change. But class action litigation is itself very significant, protracted and expensive,” he said. “It potentially interposes an initial step in the process of obtaining relief.”

Certification, which is often required to pause federal policies, often takes time and requires discovery. But not always.

A Nevada federal judge has rejected Ultimate Fighting Championship’s motion seeking to deny class certification for fighters suing it over alleged suppressed wages, saying the request is premature.

UFC argued that the plaintiffs — Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway and Tristan Connelly — cannot serve as class representatives because they did not sign the arbitration agreements or class action waivers that the majority of fighters in the proposed class have signed.

“But plaintiffs are currently challenging these provisions as unconscionable,” U.S. District Judge Richard F. Boulware said in a Friday minute order. “Were the court to agree, Zuffa’s objection would be moot.”

. . .

The fighters and proposed class are represented by Eric L. Cramer, Michael Dell’Angelo, Patrick F. Madden, Robert Maysey and Joshua P. Davis of Berger Montague, Joseph R. Saveri, Kevin E. Rayhill and Chris Young of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, Richard A. Koffman, Benjamin D. Brown and Daniel H. Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and W. Joseph Bruckner, Kyle Pozan and Brian Clark of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Max Miller never applied to college using early decision, unlike some of his wealthier classmates who were more certain about their first-choice school and able to pay full tuition. Instead, the 21-year-old Californian applied the traditional way, hoping to compare financial aid offers from multiple schools.

Except none came. Miller has a full tuition bill at Washington University in St. Louis—more than $60,000 annually—where he enrolled in 2022.

Miller believes his tuition is artificially high due to colleges’ collusion.

“I’ve clearly been on the unfair end of the admissions process,” said Miller, a named plaintiff in a suit this month that accuses elite colleges of using early decision to raise student costs.

The schools are accused of using early decision to lock in wealthy students who can pay more, giving the schools power to raise tuition and harm more price-sensitive students, such as Miller. Early decision allows applicants to apply early but requires a commitment to attend if accepted.

Universities are grappling with antitrust pressure from private plaintiffs such as Miller, who have accused them of conspiring to raise tuition and limit financial aid. The schools face treble damages and demands for injunctive relief from plaintiffs who claim the schools illegally shared information, inflating tuition.

. . .

Through binding early decision, schools secure a large chunk of students who are less likely to need financial assistance, which in turn leads to less pressure on colleges to compete on top-line tuition prices, said Benjamin D. Brown, co-chair of the antitrust practice at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, which represents the plaintiffs.

“If you know that half your class will pay whatever price you set, and then the rest of your class has some price sensitivity, you will set your price higher—i.e., full tuition rate—than it would be if everyone was somewhat price sensitive,” Brown said.

. . .

Brown, also Cohen Milstein’s managing partner, stands by the case’s theory, saying colleges haven’t been viewing their collective action through an antitrust lens.

“One consequence of that is a willingness to make broad agreements or understandings with multiple competing entities,” he said.

A federal appeals court’s decision shutting down allegations that Las Vegas hotel-casinos colluded on room prices reduces legal risk for companies using algorithmic software for pricing decisions.

Even if the hotels were aware of their competitors’ use of Cendyn Group LLC’s pricing software, their individual decisions to use those products themselves were insufficient to support a federal antitrust claim, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in a first-of-its-kind decision Aug. 15.

The ruling, which upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the case, is a significant win for Caesars Entertainment Inc., Wynn Resorts Ltd., and other hotel-casinos accused of using the software to inflate room prices on the Las Vegas Strip. The Ninth Circuit said there’s no conspiracy without an agreement.

. . .

The opinion suggests hotels can get around antitrust scrutiny as long as there is no evidence they communicated with each other, said Benjamin D. Brown, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s antitrust practice.

“It’s potentially a step down a dangerous path of encouraging competing corporations to collude on price simply by choosing the same entity to outsource their pricing decisions,” Brown said. “It creates a very easy roadmap for price fixing.”

A New York federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Visa cannot enforce a $5.54 billion settlement in long-running multidistrict antitrust litigation against a class of Visa debit cardholders in a separate, similar suit, finding that the deal does not cover their claims, and therefore the claims can’t be released.

U.S. District Judge Margot K. Brodie of the Eastern District of New York issued a memorandum and order saying the class in In Re: Visa Debit Card Antitrust Litigation cannot be held to the terms of the settlement agreement reached in the current action, which accused Visa and Mastercard of charging improper merchant fees.

. . .

The Visa debit plaintiffs are represented by Brent W. Johnson and Daniel McCuaig of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, by Daniel P. Weick and Christopher L. Lebsock of Hausfeld LLP, by Matthew Tripolitsiotis, Christopher J. Cormier, Matt Strauser, Ian Baize and Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest LLP, and by Joseph W. Cotchett, Adam J. Zapala, Brian Danitz, Gia Jung, Karin B. Swope, Thomas E. Loeser and Vara Lyons of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

The Equal Rights Center’s investigations and lawsuits detail how D.C. landlords turn away prospective tenants just because they use housing vouchers to pay rent.

Undercover rental applicants found blatant and widespread discrimination against housing voucher holders by landlords of luxury apartment buildings in Navy Yard, Shaw, and NoMa, according to a new lawsuit filed by the Equal Rights Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization.

The ERC’s “testers” inquired about renting at J.Coopers Row, Jefferson MarketPlace, J Linea, and Pinnacle but ran into unlawful requirements, such as minimum income for voucher holders and overly broad eviction and criminal background screenings, according to the lawsuit filed against JAG Management Company and Jefferson Apartment Group.

One manager stated, “their application will unfortunately be denied even if the voucher is sufficient enough to cover their full rent.”

More than 10,000 D.C. residents depend on housing choice vouchers. Formerly known as “Section 8” vouchers, these government-funded subsidies enable low-income tenants to secure housing in the private rental market that they otherwise couldn’t afford.

But the promise of finding a home in a desirable neighborhood frequently runs into a harsh reality: Landlords in D.C. often illegally deny or discourage access to available units, according to covert investigations and lawsuits filed in just the past five years. D.C. law prohibits denials based on source of income and sets strict limits on considering eviction and criminal records.

The legal action is the latest in a string of lawsuits brought by ERC that highlight a long-standing pattern of discrimination across the District. Through strategic litigation and fair housing testing, the ERC has uncovered widespread discriminatory practices in luxury and affordable housing properties totaling more than 3,000 units, according to legal filings.

The ERC, which relies in part on government grants, has pursued legal challenges based on several D.C. statutes, including the DC Human Rights Act, DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act, DC Rental Housing Act, Eviction Record Sealing Authority and Fairness in Renting Amendment Act, and DC Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act.

Mark Zuckerberg has better things to do than sit for a deposition.

Or so lawyers for Meta Platforms suggest in a pending petition to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, objecting to the billionaire CEO being forced to give testimony in a proposed privacy class action.

The company invokes a controversial principle known as the apex doctrine to claim Zuckerberg should be spared the hot seat, arguing that he has no “unique” knowledge of the case, and plaintiffs’ lawyers could get the same information from lower-level Meta employees.

Plaintiffs want to question the CEO about allegations that Meta obtained private health information from millions of Facebook users without their knowledge or consent via its Pixel tracking tool. The claims echo those in a class action by users of fertility tracking app Flo Health, where a San Francisco jury on August 1 found Meta violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Damages are yet to be determined, but as I previously noted, the total could be huge.

In June, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi and gave the plaintiffs a green light to depose Zuckerberg. However, the judge limited the session to a maximum of three hours and narrowed the scope of allowable questions to center on a consent decree Meta entered into with the Federal Trade Commission involving the Flo app and Zuckerberg’s role as a final decisionmaker on privacy-related matters.

. . .

Plaintiffs’ lawyers counter that state and federal procedural rules already allow subpoenaed witnesses to contest demands for their testimony. There should be “no special dispensation from civil discovery for corporate executives simply because of their status as titans of industry,” wrote lawyers from Gibbs Mura; Simmons Hanly Conroy; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Kiesel Law; and Terrell Marshall Law Group.

. . .

Plaintiffs’ lawyers, in justifying their request to question Zuckerberg, argue that from the start he’s been implicated in the case. “He had personal knowledge of Meta’s intent to receive this information,” they allege, “and he knew about and played a key role in Meta’s collection of sensitive health data.”

The appeals court has not indicated when it will rule on the petition, but Meta lawyers notified the district court that Zuckerberg’s deposition may proceed this month in Palo Alto if the 9th Circuit denies its mandamus petition by August 21.

A Massachusetts federal judge has preliminarily signed off on an $8.5 million settlement reached between Nuance Communications and more than 1 million patients in multidistrict litigation over a 2023 malware attack that exploited a vulnerability in Progress Software’s MOVEIt transfer file tool.

In an 11-page order issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the nonreversionary settlement reached with Nuance Communications, a Microsoft unit that provides clinical documentation services in the healthcare industry.

The settlement class consists of approximately 1.225 million patients of healthcare providers whose personal information was exchanged between the providers and Nuance, which uses Progress’s MOVEIt transfer tool to do so.

“The Court finds that the proposed settlement creates an equitable claims process that will allow settlement class members an opportunity to obtain reimbursement for certain types of harm they may have suffered as a result of events alleged in the litigation,” Judge Burroughs’ preliminary approval order said.

. . .

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Berger Montague PC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lynch Carpenter LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Levin Sedran & Berman LLP.