18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 263 that Plaintiffs did not allege that any actions of Defendants subjected them to the Court’s jurisdiction that could be imputed to Arizona Logistics or BBB Logistics or that Arizona Logistics and BBB Logistics were a mere department of an entity subject to general jurisdiction in New York. Id . at *11. The Court therefore dismissed Defendants Arizona Logistics and BBB Logistics from the case with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that Defendant Browne negotiated the service contract with a company based in New York, dictated conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment in New York, and approved fees charged to Diligent employees in connection with their employment. Id . at *12. The Court determined that the facts established that Browne transacted business in New York and Browne negotiated the contract that set conditions for Plaintiffs’ employment with New York-based Parts Authority and it was thus reasonable for him to be brought into Court in New York based on the effects of that contract on New York employees of his companies. Id . at *13. The Court found that it had personal jurisdiction over Defendant Browne. The Court further reasoned that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Browne was their joint employer, as Browne negotiated the contract and employee code of conduct that dictated the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ work, approved administrative fees charged by the Diligent Delivery Systems entities, approved reimbursements for drivers, approved electronic devices utilized by drivers, and maintained ultimate authority over the operations of the Diligent Delivery Systems entities. Id . at *16. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Defendants Arizona Logistics Inc. and BBB Logistics Inc., and denied the motion as to Defendant Browne. Saavedra, et al. v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Case No. 20-17327 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021). Plaintiffs, three salespersons at car dealerships in California, filed a class action alleging wage & hour claims against Defendants Volkswagen Group of American and Volkswagen AG for violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants were their joint employer with the individual car dealerships. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to establish that Defendants were their joint employer. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit explained that under California law, an employer is the one “who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any one person.” Id . at 2. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants paid them incentive compensation for selling cars and for reaching a target score based on customer survey results, and therefore Defendants controlled their wages. The Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiffs’ allegations failed to contain sufficient information regarding the incentive compensation program, including whether or not the payments were a material portion of their overall compensation. The Ninth Circuit further determined that Plaintiffs failed to present evidence that Defendants’ alleged mandatory trainings and certifications affected their ability to work at the dealerships. The Ninth Circuit also opined that Plaintiffs alleged no engagement with Defendants to establish a common law employment relationship. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (xx) Jurisdictional Issues In Wage & Hour Collective And Class Actions Bone, et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181326 (D. N.Mex. Sept. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of safety consultants for Defendant, an oil and gas producer, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of "all safety consultants who worked for XTO Energy, Inc., anywhere in the United States, at any time from July 14, 2017 through the final disposition of the matter." Id . at *2-3. Plaintiffs also sought class certification of the state law claims pursuant to Rule 23 for a class of "all safety consultants who worked for XTO Energy, Inc., in the state of New Mexico, at any time from July 14, 2017 through the final disposition of the matter." Id . at *3. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction of all claims by non-New Mexico members of the FLSA collective action. The Court noted that it was bound by the ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), which held that it lacked jurisdiction over no-California Plaintiffs because there was not a sufficient connection between the state of California and the claims by the non-resident Plaintiffs. The Court reasoned that although Bristol-Myers dealt with out-of-state claims in a mass action, many case law authorities applying Bristol-Myers had characterized collective actions as closer to mass actions than class actions because the opt-in Plaintiffs in a collective action have "party status," and is a real party in interest. The Court agreed with this reasoning. It opined that mass and collective actions treat all members as parties who must each meet jurisdictional requirements. Id . at *10. Therefore, the