18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 617 needed because there were only a few actions. The Panel rejected this argument, and explained that all four actions involved the same products that were sold nationwide, and thus similar statewide class actions in districts across the country could continue to be filed. The Panel thus concluded that centralization under § 1407 was available to the parties to streamline the litigation. The Panel determined that Defendant’s headquarters were in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the documents and witnesses relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims would also likely be found in the district. Further, the Panel concluded that it could provide a judge who had not yet presided over a multi-district litigation the opportunity to do so with centralization of the action. The Panel therefore transferred all the actions pending outside the Western District of Pennsylvania to that district. In Re Apple App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63655 (J.P.M.L. March 30, 2021). Plaintiffs filed six class actions in six judicial districts alleging that Apple, through its App Store, promoted, facilitated, and profited from simulated casino-style games that involved gambling in violation of state laws. Defendant Apple Inc. filed a motion to centralize the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of California. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“the Panel”) granted the motion to centralize the litigation in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the six actions who brought the motion and one potential added action supported centralization. The Panel determined that all the actions involved common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California would best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Id . at *1. Plaintiffs in all actions alleged that casino-style app games in the App Store allowed users to purchase virtual coins or coin-like objects to play for the chance to win more playing time and that paying money for the chance to win more playing time constituted unlawful gambling. Id . at *2. The Panel reasoned that since all actions would involve overlap in dispositive motions and discovery on third-party app developers, centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Id . at *2-3. The Panel concluded that the Northern District of California was the appropriate transferee district, as Defendant Apple’s headquarters were located there, in addition to employees with relevant knowledge and common documentary evidence. Id . at *3-4. The Panel therefore transferred the actions to the Northern District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In Re Bank Of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, MDL No. 2992 (J.P.M.L. April 26, 2021). Plaintiff moved under 29 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize 10 pending class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the other actions supported centralization. Defendant opposed centralization in favor of informal coordination. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“Panel”) found that the actions involved common questions of fact and that centralization in the Southern District of California would best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Panel determined that all the claims involved allegations that Defendant, the entity contracted by California to distribute unemployment benefits to eligible participants, failed to safeguard and properly manage benefits during the pandemic. Plaintiff asserted that these actions led to unlawfully frozen accounts or denial of access to funds in accounts. The Panel opined that there were several common questions as to class members in all 10 actions. Further, the Panel ruled that the California Employment Development Department was a named Defendant in one action and a subject of third-party discovery in all other actions. The Panel concluded that centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, counsel, and the judiciary. Id . at 2. The Panel opined that the Southern District of California was the most appropriate transferee district because seven potential tag along class actions were located there and it was a less-frequently utilized district. For these reasons, the Panel granted the motion to centralize the actions. In Re Dickey ’ s Barbeque Restaurants, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation , Case No. 2983 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 4, 2021). Plaintiffs in six class actions alleged that Defendant, a restaurant chain, failed to prevent cybercriminals from stealing credit card numbers from nearly three million customers. Plaintiffs’ counsel brought a motion to centralize the lawsuits in the Southern District of California, which the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) denied. The JPML determined that since there were only a minimum number of actions involved, the burden to approve centralization as appropriate was heavier, and Plaintiffs failed to meet