18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 515 because two questions that were "integral" to her claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, "can be resolved with common proof,” including: (i) "the question of whether the Vanilla representations were likely to deceive reasonable consumers; and (ii) whether the Vanilla representations were material to reasonable consumers." Id . at *42. The Court explained that when a Plaintiff has not shown that the alleged misrepresentations could be deceptive as a matter of law (as may be the case with labels of origin), they must point to common evidence other than the alleged misrepresentations themselves to establish that the question of likelihood of deception can be resolved on a class-wide basis. The Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to provide any common evidence that could establish likelihood of deception. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion with respect to the claims under the UCL and FAL. As to Plaintiff’s CLRA claim, the Court reasoned that the only common evidence to which Plaintiff pointed as being capable of answering these questions was the expert report of Dr. Dennis. The Court opined that Plaintiff must point to common evidence other than the alleged misrepresentations themselves to establish that the question of likelihood of deception could be resolved on a class-wide basis. The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to provide any other common evidence that could answer the question of whether the Vanilla representations were material to a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the question was not capable of resolution on a class-wide basis relative to Plaintiff’s CLRA claim. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (xxiii) COBRA Class Actions Green, et al. v. FCA US LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84655 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former employees, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to provide adequate notice of their right to continued heath care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"). Plaintiffs alleged that the notice that Defendant issued was deficient because it failed to identify the name and contact information of the plan administrator and because it contained unnecessary warnings that confused and discouraged them from electing continued healthcare coverage. Plaintiffs contended that the notice’s "threats and warnings" did not belong in a COBRA notice and served to discourage individuals from enrolling in continued healthcare coverage. Id . at *3. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked standing. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. First, the Court explained that pursuant to the COBRA, the administrator of the group health plan must provide employees and qualified beneficiaries with notice of their right to enroll in continued health insurance coverage within a certain period of time after a qualifying event, such as a termination. Id . at *5. Plaintiffs conceded that they received a notice from Defendant, but alleged that the notice was deficient because: (i) it was not drafted in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant, since it contained unnecessary and confusing information; and (ii) it did not provide the name and contact information of the plan administrator. The Court opined that accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they were adequate to demonstrate that Plaintiffs suffered an economic injury as to the first deficiency claim, which was an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing. The Court determined that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that as a result of the defective notice, at least in part, they did not elect COBRA coverage and incurred medical expenses. However, as to the second claim, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to allege an injury-in-fact, as they could not contend that they were harmed by this alleged misinformation of the plan administrator. The Court concluded that even assuming that the notice did not correctly identify the plan administrator and the statute was violated, Plaintiffs had not asserted that they suffered any adverse consequences as a result. Id . at *10. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Holmes, et al. v. WCA Management Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84518 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging violations of the notice requirements of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"). Plaintiffs asserted that the COBRA notice provided by Defendant violated applicable COBRA regulations because: (i) it failed to provide an explanation of the continuation coverage termination date, but rather omitted the termination date entirely; (ii) failed to include information about how participants could lose COBRA coverage before the omitted termination date; (iii) failed to identify the Plan Administrator for the group health plan, and (iv) was not written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant. Id . at *4. The parties ultimately settled the matter and filed a joint motion for preliminary settlement approval. The Court granted the motion. The proposed settlement class consisted of approximately 1,771 individuals, and Defendant agreed to establish common fund for class members consisting of $210,000, of which each member would receive a net payment of approximately $68.67 (after payment of attorneys’ fees