18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

476 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Plaintiffs contended that Marathon agreed to pay full non-prorated ICP bonuses to eligible employees who were terminated after its acquisition of Andeavor in 2018 and that it failed to do so. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims on grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs had not alleged a plausible claim for breach of contract; (ii) Plaintiffs had not pled facts to support an amendment to provide for non-prorated bonuses; (iii) the statute of frauds barred any oral amendment; and (iv) the alleged breach was foreclosed because any amendment was subject to the sole discretion of Defendants. Id . at *3-4. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. First, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim sufficiently stated a viable claim such that dismissal was not appropriate. Plaintiffs acknowledged that they asserted a single claim for breach of contract and that their claims for declaratory judgment and specific performance were not in addition to that claim but were merely asserted in the alternative. Id . at *9-10. However, in the complaint, declaratory judgment and specific performance were presented as additional claims for relief. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion and dismissed the requested declaratory judgment as adding nothing to this case beyond what was already placed at issue by the breach-of-contract claim. The Court thereby granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. (xi) Choice-Of-Law Issues In Class Actions Stromberg, et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29395 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers who bought cellphones, brought a class action alleging that Defendant maintained a monopoly in modem chips because the amount attributable to an allegedly excessive royalty was passed through the distribution chain to consumers in the form of higher prices or reduced quality in cellphones. The District Court certified a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) and an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2). On Defendant’s appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court erred in certifying the Rule 23(b)(3) class because it failed to properly analyze California’s choice-of-law rules to determine the impact of applicable state laws. Further, the Ninth Circuit held that California’s choice-of-law rules precluded the District Court’s certification of the 23(b)(3) class because the laws of other states, beyond California’s Cartwright Act, should apply. As a result, the Ninth Circuit concluded that common issues of law did not predominate in the Rule 23(b)(3) class as currently certified. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s order certifying the Rule 23(b)(2) class in light of FTC v. Qualcomm , 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2019). Underlying the Ninth Circuit’s holding in FTC v. Qualcomm was the principle that the antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, were enacted for the protection of competition, and actual or alleged harms to customers and consumers outside the relevant markets were beyond the scope of antitrust law. Moreover, in FTC v. Qualcomm, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Defendant’s licensing practices, the same practices complained of here, were lawful and not anticompetitive. As such the Ninth Circuit instructed the District Court on remand to address the effect of FTC v. Qualcomm on class certification in this case with a particular focus on Plaintiffs’ ability to meet the threshold requirements of Rule 23(a), as well as the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims to move forward. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s certification orders. (xii) Civil Rights Class Actions A.A., et al. v. Phillips, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98189 (M.D. La. May 25, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of parents of minor children, filed a class action alleging that Defendant, the Louisiana Department of Health ("LDH’), failed to fulfill its statutory duty to provide medically necessary mental health interventions to Medicaid-eligible children with diagnosed mental health disorders. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs’ core allegation was that the LDH maintained a policy of not providing "intensive home and community-based services" ("IHCBS"), including "intensive care coordination, crisis services, and intensive behavioral services and supports that are necessary to correct or ameliorate Plaintiffs’ mental illnesses or conditions." Id . at *3. Plaintiffs contended that the LDH only provided basic mental health interventions, such as medication management and infrequent counseling. The Court found that the class met the numerosity requirement, as up to many as 47,500 children were included in the proposed class. The Court also determined that several common questions would be required to answer all class members’ claims. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the potential class members, as they were all Medicaid recipients diagnosed with mental disorders, alleged to have been denied IHCBS due to the LDH’s failure to make such services available, and all sought remedies that would benefit all class members. Id . at *34. The Court also found no foreseeable conflict between Plaintiffs’ interests and those of the class, and Plaintiffs’ counsel were appropriately qualified and experienced. Finally, as to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the Court opined that