18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 443 allowed for 10 to 20 minutes in security screening time per screening, and not per shift as the complaint stated. Therefore, the Court determined that the lower-end estimate of the amount-in-controversy was only $2.9 million, even using Defendant’s evidence and calculations. The Court therefore ruled that Defendants failed to carry the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court dismissed the action. (vii) Seventh Circuit City Of Fishers, et al. v. DIRECTV, 5 F.4th 750 (7th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of cities in Indiana, filed a state court class action seeking a declaration that Defendant’s streaming video platforms owed them past and future franchise fees under Indiana state law. Defendant removed the action. The District Court declined to exercise federal jurisdiction based on the doctrine of comity abstention and remanded the action back to the state court. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Indiana Video Service Franchises Act requires companies offering "video service" to enter into a franchise agreement with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission in exchange for use of a public right-of-way. Id . at 754. Plaintiffs asserted that under the Act, streaming platforms provided "video service" as defined by the Act and therefore must pay past and future franchise fees. Plaintiffs contended on appeal that remand was properly granted because District Courts have long declined to exercise jurisdiction over cases involving local revenue collection and taxation. Under the Tax Injunction Act, a District Court "shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State." Id . at 753. The Seventh Circuit observed that the comity abstention doctrine counsels District Courts “to resist engagement in certain cases falling within their jurisdiction,” including cases regarding "state taxation of commercial activity," on the understanding that revenue collection is a core function of state governments. Id . The Seventh Circuit reasoned that since the Indiana Video Service Franchises Act yielded revenue for municipalities in Indiana by imposing fees on businesses, the comity doctrine was implicated by Plaintiffs’ demand for fees. The Seventh Circuit found that all factors weighed in favor of abstention. First, the Seventh Circuit determined that Indiana and its municipal governments exercised broad authority over utility and right-of-way regulation within the State, and asking the District Court to review the Act’s effect on streaming platforms would inject it into matters affecting local revenue over which the State of Indiana and its municipalities enjoyed wide regulatory latitude. Id . at 756. The Seventh Circuit also agreed with the District Court’s assessment that Defendants removed the case as part of an attempt to maintain a competitive advantage over traditional cable providers. Id . Finally, the Seventh Circuit determined that the state courts would be better positioned to address remedial questions that might arise in the context of adjudicating both parties’ claims and defenses. Defendants argued that the CAFA eliminated the District Court’s ability to apply preexisting abstention doctrines to class actions otherwise authorized for removal under the statute. Id . at 758. The Seventh Circuit, however, explained that any of the CAFA’s exceptions should complement preexisting comity concerns, not delete them entirely. For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Stauffer, et al. v. Innovative Heights Fairview Heights LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119712 (S.D. Ill. June 3, 2021). Plaintiff filed a state court class action alleging that Defendants collected and stored her biometric identifiers in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Plaintiff sought to represent two classes, including one consisting of individuals whose biometric information and identifiers were collected or otherwise obtained by Innovative Heights (the "Innovative Heights class") and one consisting of individuals whose biometric information and identifiers were collected or otherwise obtained by Pathfinder (the "CenterEdge class"). Id . at *3. Plaintiff asserted that Pathfinder maintained the system and database in which Innovative Heights’ employees’ fingerprints were stored and that neither entity ever informed her or other class members that it would store the information. Defendants removed the action pursuant to the CAFA. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to remand, which the Court granted as to Plaintiff’s BIPA claims. Pathfinder subsequently removed Plaintiff’s § 15(a) claims, while the § 15(b) claims continued in a separate case. Pathfinder argued that due to a recent, controlling Seventh Circuit opinion, removal of the claim was proper. Pathfinder contended that in Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems LLC , 980 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 2020), Plaintiff’s claim was considered an “order or other paper" under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) because the case "resolved a legal uncertainty concerning federal jurisdiction" Id . at *5. Pathfinder further contended that Fox ultimately was an "intervening change in the law," which also allows for re-removal of Plaintiff’s § 15(a) claims, as it resolved a legal uncertainly concerning federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff contended that Fox still did not support Article III standing for Plaintiff’s § 15(a) claims. The Court agreed with Plaintiff. The Court found that although the cases involved similar legal issues, in Fox , the