18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

462 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition JTDC, and Cook County, Illinois ("County Defendants"), owed them a fiduciary duty and breached it by permitting the filming. The Court previously had granted the Fox Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on state law claims against them and granted in part and denied in part the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id . at *3. The County Defendants subsequently filed a request for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Id . The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. Defendants did not request certification of the constitutional question in their original brief and the Court determined that revisiting them on interlocutory appeal would prolong, rather than advance, the termination of the litigation. Id . at *13. Defendants instead sought certification of the question of whether Defendant Dixon was entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to the Illinois State Lawsuit Immunity Act, which the Court previously had held he did not. The Court agreed with Defendants that there were substantial grounds for difference of opinion on the proper interpretation of case law authorities on the issue. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Seventh Circuit could be interested in reviewing the case law authorities to rule on the correct interpretation. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to certify the case for interlocutory appeal. (vi) Appointment, Selection, And Removal Of Lead Counsel In Class Actions Doe MC-1, et al. v. The University Of Michigan , Case No. 20-CV-10568 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of students who sought treatment from a former sports doctor at the University of Michigan, filed a class action asserting claims of sexual assault against the doctor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of three law firms to serve as co-lead counsel in the matter. Plaintiffs contended that there were over 40 attorneys currently representing Plaintiffs and potential Plaintiffs. The Court granted the motion. The Court determined that establishing a formal leadership structure in the case would ensure effective litigation management for all parties. The Court found that the attorneys who sought the appointment had already shown an ability and willingness to act diligently on behalf of all Plaintiffs and proposed Plaintiffs. The Court thereby appointed the Mike Cox Law Firm, Wright & Schulte, and Grewal Law to serve as co-lead counsel. In Re Elmiron Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 20-MD-2973 (D.N.J. Jan. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs in this multi-district class action alleged that Johnson & Johnson’s pharmaceutical unit concealed a harmful side effect of its bladder cyst medicine that resulted in serious eye damage. After the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation consolidated the 42 separate actions and centralized them in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Court requested Plaintiffs’ counsel to meet and confer regarding the appointment of a Plaintiff Steering Committee (“PSC”) to serve as Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs submitted their recommendations to the Court, and the Court approved the recommendations. Accordingly, the Court appointed Virginia Anello of Douglas & Landon, Parvin Aminolroaya of Seeger Weiss, and Paul Pennock of Morgan & Morgan as Co-Lead Counsel of the Plaintiff Steering Committee. Id . at 2. The Court appointed Chirali Patel of Carella Byrne Cecchi Broady & Agnello as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel. Finally, the Court granted approval of members of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and Steering Committee. Id . The Court identified the responsibilities of the PSC to include coordinating the responsibilities of the committee members and conducting the litigation’s discovery, motion practice, hearings, meetings, contact with defense counsel, and general litigation oversight. Id . at 6-7. In Re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96549 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2021). Plaintiffs in a multi-district class action alleged that Defendant Robinhood attempted to slow the growth of GameStop stock by denying customers the ability to use its services by abruptly removing the stock from the Robinhood app, in order to manipulate the market for the express benefit of people and financial institutions who were not Robinhood customers. Plaintiffs contended that the trading restrictions created a one-way sell situation and resulted in a steep decline in share prices for GameStop stock, which caused Plaintiffs economic injury and allowed institutional investors to cover their short positions in these securities. The Court found this litigation would proceed most efficiently with four groups, or "tranches," of claims, including: (i) antitrust claims against Defendants; (ii) state law claims against the Robinhood entities and other Robinhood-related Defendants; (iii) state law claims against the other broker-dealer Defendants and other related Defendants; and (iv) federal securities law claims. Id . at *22. The Court also appointed lead counsel for the claims, including four total lead counsel, two for the antitrust claims, one Robinhood counsel, and one Other Broker counsel. The Court further appointed a steering committee of five members and a liaison counsel. The Court thereafter ordered that to manage the orderly progress of the case, lead counsel and the steering committee, in conjunction with counsel