James v. Global Tellink Corp., 852 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2017).  In this putative class action, plaintiffs were inmates at New Jersey correctional facilities.  They signed up with defendants for a service that would allow plaintiffs to telephone loved ones, attorneys, and others outside of the prisons. One plaintiff signed up via defendants’ website, while the others did so through an automated telephone service that used scripts and prompts.  Those who signed up by phone were

Ramirez v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 852 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2017).  The so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) extended federal jurisdiction not only to class actions over which federal courts previously did not have power, but also to “mass actions.”  28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(11).  To qualify as a mass action, there must be at least 100 plaintiffs who seek to have their cases “tried jointly.”  But as Judge Vanaskie noted

Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC, 228 N.J. 163 (2017).  Plaintiffs bought used cars from defendants.  In connection with those purchases, plaintiffs signed Dispute Resolution Agreements (“DRA’s”) that required any disputes to be arbitrated “in accordance with the rules” of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”).  Several months later, plaintiffs filed for arbitration with the AAA, asserting claims under consumer protection statutes.  The DRA&