18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 427 Appellate Division further opined that there was “no basis to find, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff failed to assert valid claims…” Id . Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Defendants failed to establish that Plaintiff’s claims of false or misleading statements or material omissions in Defendants’ public offering were premised on non-actionable statements of opinion. Id . at *3. For these reasons, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Duncan, et al. v. Capital Region Landfills, Inc., 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5793 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of property owners, filed a negligence and public nuisance class action alleging that Defendant’s Colonie Landfill emitted noxious odors that interfered with their rights and caused injuries in the form of loss of use and enjoyment of their properties. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that Plaintiffs’ allegations did not state legally cognizable claims under New York law. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the New York Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s ruling. The parties acknowledged that the legal issues presented were identical to the issues presented a related action, in which the Appellate Division recently ruled that the claims were not legally cognizable claims for public nuisance or negligence. Since the claims in this matter matched those claims, the Appellate Division ruled that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division therefore reversed and remanded the trial court’s ruling denying Defendant’s motion. Enriquez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2746 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 12, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action suit against Defendants alleging violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), public nuisance, unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage in connection with the opioid crisis in New Jersey. Plaintiff contended that the crisis caused insurance companies to pay the costs of opioid medication and addiction treatment for their insureds, which increased premiums, co-pays, and deductibles for Plaintiff and the other class members. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The trial court found that the CFA claim could not stand because "Defendants had no contact with Plaintiff, and did not make any misrepresentations or omissions to him." Id . at *5. The trial court reasoned that even if Plaintiff’s allegations were true, it could not find a causal link between Defendants’ conduct and Plaintiff’s alleged injury. The trial court further found that Plaintiff could not "establish an ascertainable loss through statistical data" because it was "essentially a fraud on the market theory, which has been rejected as a basis to establish an ascertainable loss" by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Id . at *6. The trial court also opined that there were many things that could have an impact on insurance costs. Finally, the trial court dismissed the public nuisance count because it failed to meet the pleading criteria, the negligence claim because Defendants owed no duty of care to Plaintiff, and the unjust enrichment claim because Plaintiff could not establish any direct benefit Defendants received from Plaintiff. The Appellate Division determined that the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint and that its reasoning was well-founded. Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling dismissing Plaintiff’s claims. International Franchise Association, et al. v. City Of New York, 2021 (N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2469 (N.Y. App. Div. April 20, 2021). Plaintiffs, an organization of franchisees, franchisors, and suppliers, filed a class action alleging that the New York Fair Workweek Law (“FWWL”) conflicted with the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) and was therefore ineffective. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the FWWL was preempted by state law. Defendants moved to dismiss, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the New York Appellate Division affirmed. Plaintiffs contended that the FWWL’s "access to hours" provision – in which employers considering hiring new workers must first offer the hours the new workers would fill to existing employees (and give the hours to existing employees who take them) – potentially violated the NYLL’s protections that workers get one full day of rest per week, and against minors working more than 18 hours per week. Id . at *2. The Appellate Division rejected this contention on the basis that the FWWL contained a savings clause expressly directing that an "employer’s system for the distribution of shifts shall not violate any federal, state or local law, including laws that prohibit discrimination" Id . Plaintiffs also argued that the FWWL’s recordkeeping requirements conflicted with the NYLL’s regulations detailing records to be kept by employers. The Appellate Division explained that the NYLL’s requirements were obligations imposed on employers to promote worker protection, and the fact that a local law added recordkeeping requirements to an existing body recordkeeping requirements failed to create a conflict. Id . at *3. Finally, the Appellate Division reasoned that contrary to