18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 429 did not abuse its discretion in granting class certification to the eviction fee and complaint-filing fee subclass for largely the same reasons. The Supreme Court determined that the trial court correctly noted that the alleged illegality of the standard processes and procedures could be determined on a class-wide basis. Finally, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding that the classes met the superiority requirement. The Supreme Court disagreed on the basis that the statutory violations could be resolved with the generalized theory of liability as to all class members, it would not be impractical to determine the members of the classes, and the differences in damages and fees were not so inextricably tied to the alleged class-wide injury as to render a class action inferior to other methods of adjudication. For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (xiv) North Dakota Blasi v. Bruin E & P Partners, LLC, 2021 N.D. LEXIS 90 (N. Dak. May 20, 2021). Plaintiff brought suit against Defendants in five separate cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota alleging that Defendant underpaid royalties due under the terms of various oil and gas leases. Central to the parties’ dispute was the interpretation of a royalty provision to which the parties agreed, which stated “to deliver to the credit of the Lessor, free of cost, in the pipeline to which Lessee may connect wells on said land and, the equal fractional part of all oil produced and saved from the leased premises.” Id . at *3. Plaintiff claimed the royalty was to be paid “free of costs” and asserted that Defendants improperly deducted various costs such as gathering or moving the oil and other costs from the marketable price of the oil. Id . Defendants moved to dismiss the cases pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law because the royalty oil was to be valued at the well, which allows for the deduction of post-production costs. The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota issued an order certifying a question to the Supreme Court of North Dakota of whether the oil royalty provision should be interpreted to mean the royalty was based on the value of the oil "at the well." Id . at *4. In certifying the question, the District Court found there was no controlling precedent in North Dakota and that a ruling by the Supreme Court might be determinative of the proceedings. The District Court also concluded the issue was of some magnitude in North Dakota, noting there were at least six separate putative class action suits pending that concerned the same issue. Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Supreme Court decline to answer the question on the grounds that discovery was needed to flesh out the facts before resolving the meaning of the disputed oil royalty clause. The Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. It found that the language at issue was unambiguous and presented a question of law. The Supreme Court instead exercised its discretionary authority to answer the certified question. The Supreme Court concluded, as a matter of law, that the royalty provision established a valuation point that was at the well. Hence, the Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the royalty provision in the parties’ oil and gas lease was unambiguous and established a valuation point that was at the well, instead of at some other place that was downstream where the oil entered a pipeline. The Supreme Court reasoned that its interpretation was consistent with the intention of the parties and the language in the provision. Moreover, the Supreme Court opined that its interpretation of the provision was consistent with other jurisdictions that had interpreted similar provisions. For these reasons, the Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. (xv) Ohio Cross v. University of Toledo, 2021 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 43 (Ohio Cl. July 8, 2020). Plaintiff brought a class action seeking restitution for tuition, room and board, and fees, after he and other similarly-situated students were forced to leave school due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 23. Specifically, Plaintiff sought to certify three classes, including : (i) a Tuition Class, (ii) a Room and Board Class, and (iii) a Fee Class. Plaintiff also moved to bifurcate the Tuition Class and its tuition-related claims from the Room and Board Class and Fee Class. Ohio Rule 23 provides seven requirements for maintaining a class action, including: (i) an identifiable class must exist and the definition of the class must be unambiguous; (ii) the named representatives must be members of the class; (iii) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (iv) there must be questions of law or fact common to the class; (v) the claims or defenses of the representative parties must be typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (vi) the representative parties must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and (vii) one of the three Rule 23(B) requirements must be met. In its ruling, the Court determined that Plaintiff had satisfied each of the