18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 645 condition that Plaintiffs KPH and FWK amend their complaints as to disavow any claim to damages based on purchases made under the Janssen distribution agreements. Id. at 15. Straub, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211130 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2021). Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant Ford Motor Co. asserting claims relating to their vehicles. Defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement included in Plaintiff’s Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement, (“lease”). The lease identified Plaintiff as the Lessee and "Crossroads Ford of Fuquay Varina, Inc." as the Lessor and did not identify Defendant as a party to the contract. Id . at *6. The Court determined that there was not a stand-alone delegation clause included in the agreement, and thus examined the issue of whether Defendant, as a non-signatory, could compel Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims against it. Plaintiff argued that his claims against Defendant were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the lease. Plaintiffs contended that the lease did not specifically state that Defendant was subject to the terms of the lease, and accordingly, the arbitration provision contained therein. Defendant argued that the Court should compel arbitration under principles of estoppel because: (i) Plaintiff referenced and presumed the existence of his lease (and the new vehicle warranty it included) and alleged that the dealership that leased him his car participated with Defendant in the allegedly improper transaction; and (ii) his claims depended on duties that Defendant allegedly owed him as a result of his lease contract. Id . at *22-23. The Court agreed that arbitration was a matter of contract and a party could not be required to submit to arbitration any dispute that he had not agreed to submit. However, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant made reference to, and depended upon, his having entered into the lease. Id . at *26. The Court ruled that Defendant’s duty to comply with its warranty arose only when Plaintiff leased the vehicle. The Court therefore held that Defendant was entitled to enforce the arbitration clause in Plaintiff’s lease under principles of estoppel. Tice, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 845 Fed. App’x 535 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff, a consumer, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s Alexa device recorded users’ voices without consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the District Court granted in part and denied in part. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling with regard to the denial of the motion to compel. The District Court divided the factual allegations into "three scenarios,” including: (i) Plaintiff’s intentional use of Alexa devices; (ii) background recordings that occurred when another user activated Alexa; and (iii) "surreptitious recordings" when "Alexa sporadically recorded conversations without prompting and permission from anyone in the household." Id . at 536. The District Court ruled that Plaintiff was required to submit her intentional use and background recording claims to arbitration, but the claim premised on "surreptitious recordings" was not subject to arbitration. Id . The Ninth Circuit disagreed. It opined that the arbitration agreement contained in Defendant’s terms of use and conditions of use contained valid arbitration clauses, and recognized that incorporation of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) rules delegated to the arbitrator the determination of whether Plaintiff’s claims were covered by the agreement. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that since the arbitration clauses applied to " any dispute or claim relating in any way to . . . use of any Amazon Service, or to any products or services sold or distributed by Amazon or through Amazon.com" and to "any dispute or claim arising from or relating to this Agreement or Alexa "), it was up to the arbitrator to decide whether Plaintiff’s "surreptitious recording" claim was beyond the scope of any arbitration. Id. at 537. The Ninth Circuit therefore reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling denying Defendant’s motion to compel with regard to the surreptitious recordings claim. Vasquez, et al. v. National Enterprise Systems , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72320 (D.N.J. April 14, 2021). Plaintiff, a student loan recipient, filed a class action alleging that following the default of her loan, Defendant, a loan collector, sent her several collection letters in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision included on the loan application and promissory note that she signed with the loan originator. Plaintiff did not dispute that a valid arbitration agreement existed, but she argued that she was not required to arbitrate disputes with Defendant because Defendant was neither a signatory to the note nor authorized by its arbitration provision to compel arbitration. The language of the note’s arbitration provision stated that the following parties were able to compel arbitration: (i) the lender; (ii) any subsequent holder of the note; (iii) Sallie Mae; (iv) any affiliate or subsidiary of Sallie Mae; (v) parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates of these entities; (vi) predecessors, successors, and assigns of these entities; and (vii) officers, directors, and employees of these entities. Id . at *6-7. Defendant was an