18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

430 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Rule 23’s requirements for certification. First, the Court concluded that the three classes were identifiable and unambiguous. Further, the Court found that the class was so numerous such that joinder of all members was impracticable due to, among other things, the number of students who had been affected by Defendant’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, judicial economy, and potential requests for relief that would involve future class members. In addition, the Court held that Plaintiff, as the named representative, was a member of the proposed three classes, and based on the evidence submitted the Court concluded that it had no reason to doubt that Plaintiff would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed classes. Further, the Court held that common questions of law and fact existed as to whether class members were entitled to remediation for tuition, room and board costs, and fees. Furthermore, the Court opined that Plaintiffs’ claims relative to remediation for tuition, room and board costs, and fees were typical of the claims of the proposed classes. Additionally, the Court found that Rule 23(B)’ s requirements were met in that that common questions of law or fact predominated over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action was superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Finally, Plaintiff also requested that the Court bifurcate the Tuition Class and its tuition-related claims from the Room and Board Class and the Fee Class. The Court declined to bifurcate the Tuition Class and its tuition-related claims from the Room and Board Class and the Fee Class on the grounds that bifurcation would not be conducive to an expedited disposition of the claims or judicial economy. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified (i) a Tuition Class, (ii) a Room and Board Class, and (iii) a Fee Class. State ex rel. Ohio Stands Up!, Inc., et al. v. DeWine, 2021 Ohio LEXIS 2505 (Ohio Dec. 16, 2021). Plaintiff, an Ohio corporation, filed a class action seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus against Defendants, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Kimberly Murnieks, Director of the Ohio Office of Budget and Management. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Ohio Supreme Court granted. Plaintiff alleged that the state’s "Vax-a-Million" lottery, which encouraged Ohio residents to receive COVID-19 vaccinations, was unconstitutional because it involved use of funds from the public treasury without the authorization of the General Assembly. Plaintiff further alleged that the Vax-a-Million lottery was discriminatory because only those who "assume the risk of the vaccine" were eligible for the lottery. Id . at *2. Further, Plaintiff contended that Governor DeWine encouraged Ohio's children to undergo harmful genetic experimentation by virtue of the program. Plaintiff sought a writ of prohibition to enjoin Defendant from spending funds on the lottery and a writ of mandamus to compel Governor DeWine's “performance of his duty to seek the General Assembly's approval of all expenditures as required by Ohio Constitution Article II. Id . at *3. Defendants argued that: (i) Plaintiff lacked standing; (ii) the Supreme Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the mandamus claim; (iii) Plaintiff failed to establish the requirements for a writ of mandamus; and (iv) Plaintiff failed to state a claim for a writ of prohibition. Frist, the Supreme Court noted that a prohibition action may be brought only by a person who is either a party to the underlying court proceeding or who "demonstrates an injury in fact to a legally protected interest." Id . at *3. The Supreme Court observed that to have standing in a mandamus case, a relator must be "beneficially interested" in the case. Id . The Supreme Court found that Plaintiff, corporation, could not be injured by discrimination based on vaccination status, nor could it be directly harmed by the administration of an allegedly harmful vaccine to children. Id . Finally, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint did not establish taxpayer or associational standing, as it simply alleged that the funds in question were general revenue funds, of which Plaintiff had no special interest. Id . at *5. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that Plaintiff failed to establish that it had standing to seek a writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus. For these reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim for lack of standing. (xvi) Oklahoma State Ex Rel. Hunter, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 Okla. 54 (Okla. 2021). The State of Oklahoma by Mike Hunter, its Attorney General, sued three prescription opioid manufacturers and requested that the opioid manufacturers be held liable for violating Oklahoma’s public nuisance statute in the marketing and selling of their products. The trial court held one of the opioid manufacturers liable under Oklahoma’s public nuisance statute for its prescription opioid marketing campaign. Defendant, an opioid manufacturer, appealed a $465 million verdict following a bench trial. The State of Oklahoma counter-appealed, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the decision on the basis that Defendant’s actions did not create a public nuisance. The Supreme Court opined that under Oklahoma state law, wrongful conduct on the part of Defendant in the nuisance action consisted of “unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty." Id . at 74. The Supreme