18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 611 because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities. Id . Individuals that categorically qualified as being “socially disadvantaged” under ARPA included Blacks, American Indian/Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders individuals. Id . White or Caucasian farmers and ranchers did not meet the definition of belonging to a “socially disadvantaged group.” Id . *2-3. Plaintiff had qualifying farm loans but was ineligible for debt relief under § 1005 because he was white. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that § 1005 violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Plaintiff sought: (i) a declaratory judgment that § 1005‘s provision limiting debt relief to socially disadvantaged groups was unlawful; and (ii) a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the enforcement of § 1005. The District Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court noted that a Plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish various prerequisites, including: (i) that he was likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (iii) that the balance of equities tipped in his favor; and (iv) that an injunction was in the public interest. Applying these factors, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had established that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Specifically, the Court expressed serious concerns over whether Defendants would be able to establish any basis warranting the implementation of § 1005 ‘s race-based remedial action. Further, the Court reasoned that even if Defendants were able to establish a compelling governmental interest to enact § 1005, Plaintiff had shown a substantial likelihood of success on his claim because the law was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Under the specific circumstances of this case, the Court found that Plaintiff had shown that the he would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction because the debt relief could not be clawed back or undone, and the Court would have no power to order Congress to provide a substitute remedy of debt relief. Finally, the Court found that the balance of equities weighed in favor of maintaining the status quo by issuing a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Yick, et al. v. Bank Of America, N.A., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93564 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of bank account customers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated the Electronic Fund Transfers Act by failing to conduct an adequate, good faith investigation when cardholders report unauthorized charges, which resulted in the freezing of their accounts. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on the basis that Plaintiffs demonstrated a strong likelihood of success of their claims that Defendant was systematically breaching its contracts with cardholders and violating California’s Unfair Competition Law. The Court also granted class certification of a class consisting of all cardholders who call to report unauthorized charges to their accounts. Id . at *4. The Court also referred the case to the Magistrate Judge in order to participate in a settlement conference to review the terms of the preliminary injunction. (xlvii) Insurance Issues In Class Actions Armijo, et al. v. Affilion, LLC , 854 Fed. App'x 236 (10th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging breach of contract and negligence in connection with Defendants’ charge of excessive fees relating to medical services they received. The District Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. As to Plaintiff’s negligence claim, they argued that Defendants owed them a duty of care because Defendants were involved in the provision of medical services, which extended to the billing of the medical services. The District Court had determined that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege that Defendants provided medical care, as it did not allege any connection between Defendants and the healthcare system at which Plaintiffs received the care. The Tenth Circuit agreed that even under an expansive concept of duty, Plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim for negligence by alleging that Defendants intentionally billed them at an unreasonable rate. The Tenth Circuit therefore ruled that the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Plaintiffs also contended that the District Court erred in dismissing their breach of contract claims. Plaintiffs asserted that they adequately alleged an implied in fact contract and an implied in law contract, and for procedural and substantive unconscionability. Id at 240. Plaintiffs contended that the parties’ conduct created an implied in fact contract, i.e., Defendants agreed to provide emergency medical services in exchange "for the reasonable value of medical services provided." Id . The Tenth Circuit opined that the complaint was devoid of any factual allegations regarding the formation or terms of the contract to be implied from the parties’ conduct. Id . Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of alleging sufficient facts to show they were entitled to relief under an implied in fact contract theory. In addition, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that Plaintiffs’ quasi-contract theory was based solely on the alleged formation of an implied contract under which Plaintiffs would be obligated to pay only a reasonable price for the services they