18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

630 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition retirement benefits. Id . On appeal, the Sixth Circuit found that the focus should be on a determination of whether the parties did not form a contract that vested rights in the first place. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. As to the Plan documents referenced by Plaintiffs, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish "clear, affirmative language" of vesting based on the lack of clear vesting language in the plan documents and in the reservation of rights clauses in those documents. Id . Therefore, the Sixth Circuit ruled that Plaintiffs had not established that the plan documents claim was likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit vacated the District Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. (lv) Non-Workplace Class Action Arbitration Issues Anderjaska, et al. v. Bank Of America, N.A. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42385 (S.D.N.Y. March 3, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendants, a group of banks, caused them injury by negligently failing to take steps to prevent Plaintiffs from falling victim to a fraudulent "binary options" scheme, by aiding and abetting the scheme, and by fraudulently concealing the scheme from Plaintiffs. Id . at *2. Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of the claims of Plaintiffs Chen and Williams. The Court denied the motion. Plaintiff Chen was a resident of California and Plaintiff Williams was a resident of Wisconsin. Both contended that even after closing their debt or credit accounts, the accounts remained active. The parties did not dispute that there was an agreement to arbitrate in place that covered Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was unenforceable for several reasons. The Court rejected all of the reasons offered by Plaintiffs. However, the Court determined that it could not grant the motion to compel arbitration because pursuant to the arbitration agreement it had the authority to compel arbitration only "within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed," and the agreements at issue here required that arbitration take place in Plaintiffs’ home states (which were outside New York) or where the parties consented. Id . at *13. As a result, the Court could only could issue "an order staying the litigation pending a final outcome of the arbitration.” Id . at *14. For these reasons, the Court stayed the action pending arbitration to be compelled by their home state districts. B.F., et al. v. Amazon.com Inc ., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 12092 (9th Cir. April 23, 2021). Plaintiffs, representatives of minor children who used Amazon’s Alexa feature, filed a class action alleging that Alexa intercepted and/or recorded their communications without their consent, in violation of state wiretapping laws. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims, and the District Court denied the motion. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The question before the Ninth Circuit was whether the minor children, as non-signatories to the arbitration agreements, should be compelled to arbitrate their claims. The Ninth Circuit explained that generally non-signatories are not bound by a contract’s arbitration clause because "a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit." Id . at *2. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that "a party who knowingly exploits a contract for benefit cannot simultaneously avoid the burden of arbitrating." Id . at *3. However, here, the Ninth Circuit opined that the claims did not arise out of the contract between Plaintiffs’ parents and Defendant, as they were only claims alleging tort and personal injuries. The Ninth Circuit thus determined that Plaintiffs were not asserting any right or looking to enforce any duty created by the contracts between their parents and Amazon. Id . at *4. The Ninth Circuit concluded that since Plaintiffs were seeking relief pursuant to only state statutory claims that did not depend on their parents’ contracts, they should not be compelled to arbitrate their claims. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Brice, et al. v. Plain Green, LLC , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27833 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2020). Plaintiffs, a group of recipients of “payday loans” from Defendants, brought a putative class action alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and California law. The Chippewa Creek Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation and the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians owned Defendants, which were lending companies. Defendants represented themselves as Tribal Lenders. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants in essence operated a payday loan enterprise under the guise of the Tribal Lenders that was designed to evade state usury laws and make illegal high interest loans. The standard loan contracts contained an agreement to arbitrate any dispute arising under the contract and also included a delegation provision requiring an arbitrator to decide any issue concerning the validity, enforceability, or scope of the loan agreement or arbitration agreement. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, and the District Court denied the motion. The District Court concluded that the arbitration agreement as a whole in each contract was unenforceable because it prospectively waived