18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

268 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition form. Id . Accordingly, the Court approve the notice and consent forms, and directed the parties to conduct the notice process as it directed by the previous order. Brewer, et al. v. Alliance Coal, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218962 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 12, 2021). Plaintiff, a coal mining employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay all wages due in violation of the FLSA. The Court previously had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The parties thereafter filed status updates with the Court on the collective action notice forms and distribution protocol following a mandated meet and confer to come to an agreement. The parties were unable to agree, and therefore the Court reviewed the reports and finalized the collective action notice forms and distribution protocol. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the notice order, and the Court denied the motion. The parties each submitted their own proposed versions of an opt-in notice form and consent form. The parties disputed: (i) the issuance of a reminder notice, (ii) the providing of telephone numbers on the notice, (iii) the physical posting of notice in Defendants’ relevant facilities, and (iv) the usage of an electronic signature service. The Court declined to require the issuance of a reminder notice, as it opined that Plaintiff failed to show why such a notice was necessary. The parties also disagreed on the usage of an electronic signature service ("DocuSign") for collecting responses to the opt-in notice forms. The Court held that Plaintiff provided justification for electronic signatures and the process was used successfully in a substantially identical action. Finally, the Court noted that the parties’ opt-in consent forms were basically identical and thus it approved Plaintiff’s form. The Court held that the word "participant" better aligned with "the broad remedial goal" of the FLSA, and thus it approved the word “participant” in the form. Id . at *10. Defendants were concerned that the Court’s "implicit assumptions about similarly-situated Plaintiffs and joint employer status are, respectfully, incorrect, premature, and prejudicial." Id . at *11. The Court cautioned both parties from attempting to read "assumptions" from the Court’s orders. Id . The Court recognized that the parties had disputed the "listed employer’s name" in the notice form language, and explained that the Court was not making any determination of employer status in the notice. Id. Defendants also requested reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the usage of DocuSign. The Court, however, reasoned that Defendants failed to object to the use of DocuSign in the related action, and therefore it declined to reconsider the notice based on its use here. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7784 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former minor league baseball players, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for spring training in violation of the FLSA and various state wage & hour laws. Following the Court’s grant of class certification, Plaintiffs filed a proposed notice plan to class members pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). The parties agreed to many features of the notice plan, including administration by JND Legal Administration, and administration through email or U.S. mail depending on the available class member contact information. However, a number of disputes remained. Plaintiffs argued that the procedures for opting-out under the plan did not satisfy due process because they placed an undue burden on class members. Plaintiffs also argued that the Plan did not satisfy due process because the notices mailed to class members would be only in English while directing Spanish speakers to the case website for further information. Third, Plaintiffs contended the notice plan should provide for reminder notices to be sent to class members 30 days after the initial notice was sent. Defendants contended the notices must advise absent class members that named Plaintiffs were asserting individual claims so that they could recover additional damages on these claims beyond those sought on behalf of the class. Defendants contended the notice should specifically list the teams who remained in the case as Defendants. Defendants also objected to the short-form names used to describe the classes in the notice. Finally, Defendants objected to the domain name Plaintiffs suggested for the class website, "www.MiLBwagecase.com." Id . at *13. Defendants suggested the domain name "www.BaseballPlayerWageCase.com. " Id . at *13-14. The Court rejected Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs should be required to provide an opt-out form to class members. Next, the Court determined the long-form Rule 23 notice should be in both English and Spanish. The Court also held that Rule 23 and due process did not require that a second round of notices be sent to class members as part of the Rule 23 notice plan. Further, the Court ruled that to the extent that since the individual claims of named Plaintiffs may give rise to a potential conflict of interest, the class notice should inform the class members of these claims. The Court also held that since Plaintiffs’ proposed notice used the short-form descriptions that have been used by the Court and by other case law authorities in the Ninth Circuit previously, the likelihood of confusion from using the class names that