18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 573 and Fernando Aguirre-Urbina were appointed class representatives. Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Mr. Aguirre as a class representative due to an illness. Defendant argued that Nwauzor’s claims were not typical of the class because he held a different job that most class members, and was at the detention center for a different duration of time. Id . at *4-5. The Court found that Plaintiff’s claimed injury arose from Defendant’s alleged failure to pay him minimum wage for the work he performed, which was the same claim and alleged injury as every other class member. The Court reasoned that differences in job duties or the time spent in the program were not relevant under Rule 23. Defendant also contended that Nwauzor was not an adequate class representative because he worked only a single job, i.e ., as a shower cleaner, for a short duration. Id . at *5. The Court concluded that the differences between Nwauzor’s job and the other jobs in the facility and the length of time he was in the program did not constitute a basis to conclude that he or his counsel has any conflict of interest with other class members. Id . For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to decertify. Price, et al. v. L ’ Oreal, Case No. 17-CV-614 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s labeling of haircare products was misleading and fraudulent under California and New York law. The Court previously had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of a California law consumer class and a New York law consumer class. Following discovery, Defendant subsequently moved to decertify the classes and the Court granted the motion. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s labeling of hair products with the words “Pro-Keratin” would lead a reasonable consumer to believe the products contained keratin, which in fact, they did not. Id . at 2. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ classes failed to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23, because they could not establish a means for calculating class-wide damages consisted with Plaintiffs’ alleged injury. The Court agreed with the defense position. It opined that the proposed methodology of Plaintiffs’ expert did not offer any way that each class member could use the suggested formula to prove his or her own damages. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to decertify the class. Victorino, et al. v. FCA US LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171364 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021). Plaintiff, a consumer, filed a class action based on defects in the 2013-2015 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission built on or before November 12, 2014 ("Class Vehicles") that caused his vehicle’s clutch to fail and stick to the floor. Plaintiff asserted five causes of action for alleged violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and unfair competition law ("UCL"), a breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly Act"), a breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and unjust enrichment. The Court previously had granted class certification of a class consisting of “all persons who purchased or leased in California, from an authorized dealership, a new Class Vehicle primarily for personal, family or household purposes.” Id . at *3. After discovery, Defendant filed a motion to decertify the class on the grounds that predominance and superiority could not be met due to numerous individualized issues that would need to be tried before a jury. The Court denied Defendant’s motion. Defendant thereafter filed a second motion to decertify the action, arguing that the class should be decertified based on the recent rulings in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez , 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), and Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. Bumble Bee Foods LLC , 993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021). Defendant contended that pursuant to these rulings Plaintiff must "prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all members of the class suffered an injury-in fact to establish standing to pursue their claim." Id . at *6. Defendant asserted that Defendant’s evidence showed that more than 80% of class members suffered no injury at all, and thus the class must be decertified. Plaintiff argued that TransUnio n was distinguishable because the standing issue was decided after a trial and that Olean Wholesale had no precedential significance because the decision was vacated and the Ninth Circuit had ordered a rehearing en banc. The Court previously had found that for purposes of class certification, common issues predominated because, at trial, Plaintiff would have to prove that all class vehicles had a defect at the time of sale. The Court explained that at trial, a Plaintiff must support standing by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the Court rejected Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff, at this stage of the proceedings prior to trial, must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that common questions predominate on the issue of standing. The Court also explained that in this action, in contrast to the intangible injuries suffered by Plaintiffs in TransUnion , Plaintiff alleged that because all class vehicles inherently had a defective clutch system at the time of sale, he suffered economic loss under a benefit of the