18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

524 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition not rely exclusively on the label in making their purchasing decision. Id . at *13. The Court ruled that that the nature of Plaintiffs’ claim was typical of the class claims because the claims all arose out of Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations. Defendants did not contest the adequacy requirement, and the Court determined that Plaintiffs sufficiently established adequacy. The Court ruled that the class action was the kind of action that would be appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because the Plaintiffs requested: (i) declaratory relief that the alleged practices were unlawful, and (ii) injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing the conduct. The Court further determined that Plaintiffs met the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b) because they presented a damages model that would calculate the damages of every class member and the question or whether or not class members were misled would predominate over common questions. Finally, the Court noted that Defendants did not contest that Plaintiff satisfied the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), and it thus found that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication in the action. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Ngethpharat, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112054 (W.D. Wash. June 15, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of Washington residents insured by Defendants, whose vehicles were declared a total loss and who were offered cash value payments based on calculations made by third-party estimates, filed a class action alleging breach of contract and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted in part. Plaintiffs contended that Defendants violated state insurance regulations by using third-party valuations to determine the fair market value of Plaintiffs’ vehicle total loss claims through the application of the “typical negotiation discount,” which was not one of the standards of practice established for claims by § 391 of the Washington Administrative Code. Id . at *2. Plaintiffs contended that the valuations resulted in underpayment on their claims by giving them less than comparable vehicles were worth. Id. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs could not meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23 because § 391 allows parties to an insurance contract to agree on a value without specifying any methodology, and thus each claim would need to be examined individually. The Court rejected Defendants’ position that Plaintiffs’ class claim lacked commonality under Rule 23. It found that § 391 requires the insured’s express consent to use something other than the typical negotiation discount, which Defendants failed to demonstrate. The Court further ruled that Plaintiffs also met the other Rule 23 requirements. However, the Court opined that the proposed class was overly broad. The Court thereby narrowed the class definition to include only those insured individuals who received a value payment with the negotiation discount, and excluding those that disputed the valuations and were paid based on non-negotiated valuations. The Court additionally rejected Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs had not shown a class-wide model for establishing damages. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ pursuit of damages under breach of contract and the Washington Consumer Protection Act was sufficient. For these reasons, the Court granted class certification to Plaintiffs. Peng, et al. v. Florida Regional Center, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195300 (S.D. Fla. June 25, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that under the control and direction of Defendant Mastroianni, Defendants engaged in numerous unlawful commercial practices that harmed Plaintiffs, the Funding Partnership, and class member by breaching fiduciary duties owed to the Funding Partnership, Plaintiffs, and the class members, and breaching the parties’ EB-5 Loan Agreement. Id . at *4. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the Court granted the motion. Plaintiffs asserted that each class member invested $500,000 toward the Harbourside Place construction project, a commercial development in Jupiter, Florida, by purchasing membership units in the Funding Partnership through the EB-5 Program, which entitled them to limited partnership rights in the Funding Partnership. Id . at *5. Plaintiffs based their causes of action upon Defendants’ purported refusal to repay the loan principal, Defendants’ unilateral decision to convert the developer to a Delaware LLC, and the conversion of the loan principal into a single unit of preferred membership, which deprived them of ownership rights. Id . at *5-6. The Court first determined that Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity requirement because there were 107 members in the putative class. As to commonality, Plaintiffs contended that the class members’ common factual and legal issues were sufficient to meet the commonality requirement because every class member received a copy of the offering documents, contributed to the loan by purchasing a unit of membership in the Funding Partnership for $500,000, and received no notice that the developer would exercise the conversion clause in the EB-5 loan agreement without their consent. Id . at *15. The Court agreed that common issues of law and fact sufficiently existed between Plaintiffs and the class members to satisfy the commonality requirement. The Court