18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 621 proceedings, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs needed only to make out a prima facie case supporting jurisdiction over TMC. As such, the Court determined that Plaintiffs had satisfied this personal-jurisdiction standard by presenting enough evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs had demonstrated the Court’s jurisdiction over TMC as to the Texas-based Plaintiffs. For these reasons, the Court granted TMC’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Phelps Oil & Gas, LLC, et al. v. Noble Energy Inc., 5 F.4th 1122 (10th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action in state court against Defendants Noble Energy and DCP Midstream for underpayments on oil and gas royalties that Noble allegedly owed Plaintiffs and other owners of royalty interests. Id . at 1124. DCP removed the class action to the District Court. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court, arguing the case failed to meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The District Court denied the motion, and later entered summary judgment, which dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims except one breach of contract claim. The District Court reasoned that Plaintiff might be entitled to a royalty payment from Noble based on DCP’s promise to invest $17.5 million in infrastructure, but ultimately it dismissed the action entirely based on the finding after further discovery that Plaintiff failed to allege that Noble received any benefit from the infrastructure investment separate from increased production and revenues. Id . at 1125. On appeal, Plaintiff contended that the District Court erred in denying its motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserted that the maximum cost of compliance on Plaintiff’s claim would be limited to the amount of money that DCP would be required to pay Noble to satisfy its individual claim for royalty underpayments, which was an amount less than $1,000. Id . DCP argued that that Plaintiff also sought a declaratory judgment, which could result in DCP being held liable for all contracts between DCP and Noble, for millions of dollars in possible damages. The Tenth Circuit rejected DCP’s position. It determined that Plaintiff’s undisputed evidence showed that the maximum dollar amount it could recover was less than $1,000. Id . at 1127. The Tenth Circuit reasoned that although Plaintiff could obtain a declaratory judgment, it would require speculation about the possibility of future, uncertain litigation. The Tenth Circuit explained that jurisdictional case law did not support basing the amount-in-controversy on a possible declaratory judgment. Id . at 1128. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Rickman, et al. v. BMW Of North America LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D.N.J. May 11, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers who purchased BMW diesel vehicles, brought a putative class action asserting state law consumer protection and fraud claims arising from alleged misrepresentations regarding the vehicles’ emissions. Plaintiffs asserted these claims against: (i) Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (“BMW AG:), the manufacturer, based in Germany; (ii) BMW of North America (“BMW NA”), BMW AG’s American distributor, based in New Jersey; (ii) Robert Bosch LLC, the developer of certain technologies used in the vehicles, who was based in Michigan; and (iv) Robert Bosch GmbH, the parent of Bosch LLC, based in Germany. Defendants BMW AG and Bosch GmbH both moved to dismiss the claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) on the basis that both were foreign companies based in Germany. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to BMW AG, but granted the motion as to Bosch GmbH. At the outset, the Court acknowledged that BMW AG had not purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in New Jersey. BMW AG did not itself have any presence in New Jersey and instead operated out of Germany. The harder question, the Court noted, was whether BMW AG’s relationship with BMW NA constituted purposeful availment. BMW NA was headquartered in New Jersey and, from there, directed distribution and marketing for BMW AG- manufactured products throughout the United States. The Court reasoned that there was no dispute that it had jurisdiction over BMW NA – and general jurisdiction at that. As such, the critical question before the Court was whether the parent-subsidiary or manufacturer-distributor relationship between BMW AG and BMW NA constituted purposeful availment by BMW AG of the opportunity to do business in New Jersey. The Court determined that BMW AG had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in New Jersey because it had targeted the American market and chose to set up its American base in New Jersey. Hence, New Jersey had an interest in ensuring that companies headquartered here complied with its law that extended to ensuring that those from whom they take direction likewise comply. Further, the Court reasoned that Plaintiffs had an interest in litigating in New Jersey because two of the named Plaintiffs were New Jersey residents. In addition, the Court found that BMW AG had made no argument that Germany, where the developer was based, had a stronger interest in the litigation. As such the Court held that it had personal jurisdiction over BMW AG , and it denied the motion to dismiss. However as to Defendant Bosch GmbH, the Court concluded its stood on a