18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

590 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Defendant was derivative of its order excluding Plaintiffs’ general-causation medical experts, the Eighth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant. However, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to seal the filings Plaintiffs sought to have unsealed, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to unseal those same filings. Steele, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38047 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2021). Plaintiff, a blind pedestrian, filed a class action alleging that the absence of certain safety features in Defendant’s 2012 Honda Insight vehicle, including pedestrian warning notifications and night vision, rendered it unreasonably unsafe and that including them "would have prevented the harm without significantly impairing the usefulness or desirability of the product to its users.” Id. at *3. Following discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Court granted the motion. The Court explained that under Michigan law, expert testimony presenting evidence that a reasonable design alternative was available, that it was practicable, and that it would have reduced the risk of the accident at issue was required to establish a product liability claim. Plaintiff’s engineering expert, Robert Burnham, opined that Defendant could have installed a "pedestrian alert system" in its 2012 Insight for $200. Id . at *9. During deposition questioning, Burnham acknowledged that he had "not done an engineering design study of any system in connection with this case" and that he had "not done any study of the efficacy of any particular pedestrian detection and avoidance." Id . at *16-17. Burnham also conceded that in 2012 no regulation or standard required cars to include a pedestrian-detection and avoidance system. Id . at *17. Defendant’s expert, Ryan Harrington, offered evidence that when Defendant introduced its night vision feature in 2004, it was a $5,250 option, and in 2012, such a system was not a standard feature on any vehicle offered for sale in the United States. Id . at *20. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s expert offered no evidence that a night vision system was available in 2012 that was practicable and that would have reduced the risk of Plaintiff’s accident. The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s expert failed to offer any reliable evidence that the system was cost effective, as his $200 estimate was based on an infrared camera and a dashboard monitor he found on the internet in 2020 that he knew nothing about. Id . at *21. Burnham further conceded he did not test the components. The Court ruled that even if Burnham’s suggested cameras and dashboard monitor could have been installed on the 2012 Insight, Burnham offered no admissible evidence to show that it would have detected Plaintiff, that it would have worked effectively in the rainy and foggy conditions that were present when Plaintiff was injured, or that it would have prevented Plaintiff’s injury. Id . at *21-22. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence from which a jury could find that the 2012 Honda Insight was defective for failing to include a night vision system. Id . at *22. The Court therefore granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (xxxviii) FACTA And FDCPA Class Actions Adkins, et al. v. Midland Credit Management, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10425 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 20, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant sent them debt collection letters without the proper notice requirements under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Court denied. Defendant contended that the majority of putative class members’ claims were time-barred and should be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ proposed class consisted of individuals in West Virginia who received debt collection letters during the relevant period with the disclosure stating: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, [Midland] cannot sue you for it." Id . at *3. Plaintiffs argued that the definition provided a conservative estimate that 2,099 accounts were time-barred when Defendant sent the collection letter without the required notice. Defendant contended that the class could not benefit from the summary judgment entered by the Court on April 10, 2019, which concerned class members whose accounts were beyond the statute of limitations when the collection letters were sent. Defendant also argued that individual inquiries predominated due differences in payment history, balances due, correspondence between the creditor and borrower, potential tolling, and revival issues, which prevented class certification. Id . at *4. Plaintiffs contended that although the proposed class might exclude some class members whose debts were time-barred, the Court had discretion to certify a narrower class if necessary. Plaintiffs also asserted that applying West Virginia’s longer limitations period would address Defendant’s concerns with applying too many state limitations provisions. Plaintiffs also argued that excluding class members who had filed for bankruptcy resolved any concerns about tolling. Further, Plaintiffs explained that they applied their class definition to example accounts to confirm that the definition correctly excluded accounts which are not time-barred. Defendant contended that determining which states’ limitations period applied required an individual inquiry