18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 475 for the parties as disputes arose should it allow bifurcation. The Court explained that Plaintiffs could face prejudice in meeting the predominance and commonality requirements of the class certification without merits discovery. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for bifurcation. (x) Breach Of Contract Class Actions Bobby ’ s Country Cookin ’ , LLC, et al. v. Waitr Holdings, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183618 (W.D. La. Sept. 24, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of restaurants, filed a class action alleging breach of contract, violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment in connection with the actions of Defendant, an online food and delivery platform, raising the price of its transaction fees for online delivery orders. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Defendant argued that after increase notifications were sent to Plaintiffs, they did not raise an objection and continued receiving and fulfilling orders through Defendant’s platform for months. Defendant asserted that due to Plaintiffs’ silence and acquiescence after being notified of the increase, Plaintiffs agreed to the increased fees and were estopped from alleging breach of contract. Id . at *8. Plaintiffs argued that the plain language of the master services agreement between the parties required a modification of the agreement to be in writing and signed by both parties, which did not occur. Instead, Defendant sent out a written notice unilaterally telling Plaintiffs of the increase. The Court found that a contract requiring written modification signed by all parties could not be modified by silence or acquiescence on the part of one of the parties. Defendant argued that acquiescence could be shown to modify the contract, since Plaintiffs continued to conduct business with Defendant following the increases, which modified the contract between the parties. The Court disagreed. It held that the clear and unambiguous language of the contracts required written notification and signing by both parties. The Court concluded that although Plaintiffs did not contest the fact that they continued to use Defendant’s services and to pay the increased fees, they did not agree that they had any intent to modify or amend the contracts. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Corbett, et al. v. Public Employees Retirement System Ex Rel. State , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171007 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of retired canine handlers, filed a class action alleging that Defendants failed to contribute and pay out the proper amount of retirement benefits. Plaintiffs were enrolled in the Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) Police and Firefighters’ Retirement Fund, which they alleged had wrongfully withheld pay from Plaintiffs’ pension calculations and benefits and that Defendant Metro failed to pay contributions to PERS. Plaintiffs brought claims for unpaid pension contributions, unpaid overtime, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of statutory duty, negligence, unjust enrichment, and unpaid wages. PERS filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. PERS argued that Plaintiff’s complaint stemmed from a wage dispute with Metro, and that it could not be held liable because it merely collected contributions made by employers. Plaintiffs argued that PERS should be held liable for its improper conduct, including allegations that: (i) PERS wrongfully withheld benefits from Plaintiffs or made improper benefit calculations; and (ii) that PERS supplied Plaintiffs with a Summary Plan Description ("SPD"), which created a contract between Plaintiffs and PERS, and PERS was thus liable for the promises made in the contract. Id . at *4. The Court agreed with PERS that the complaint was focused on Metro’s failure to pay a proper wage, which resulted in fewer benefits. Id . at *5. The Court reasoned that if Plaintiff prevailed on the claims that Metro did not pay proper wages, PERS was not liable because it was not responsible "for inaccurate or misleading information provided by an officer or employee or a participating public employer or any other person." Id . As to Plaintiffs’ claims that PERS breached its contract with them, the Court determined that Plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting the claim. The Court noted that the complaint only alleged that Metro did not pay them properly, and because they were not paid properly by Metro, PERS did not distribute sufficient retirement benefits. Finally, the Court observed that Metro had the responsibility as Plaintiffs’ employer to contribute the proper amount to PERS, and Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support the allegation that PERS ignored improper contributions, or that it would have reason to believe the contributions were improper. Therefore, the Court found that the breach of fiduciary duty claim against PERS should be denied as well. Accordingly, the Court granted PERS’s motion to dismiss. Morrison, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum Co., LP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83852 (W.D. Tex. May 3, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action in connection with Defendant Marathon Petroleum Company LP’s ("Marathon") alleged breach of Defendant Andeavor LLC’s ("Andeavor") 2018 Incentive Compensation Program ("ICP"). Plaintiffs also requested alternative relief in the form of a declaratory judgment and specific performance.