18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 647 The Court again rejected Plaintiffs’ argument. It opined that an arbitration agreement expressly incorporating valid, accessible arbitration rules factored against a finding of substantive unconscionability, inasmuch as the AAA rules and procedures were easily accessible. The Court also determined that the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement, as the agreement clearly required both parties to submit to arbitration for any "dispute" that Defendants are "unable to resolve" to Plaintiffs’ satisfaction. Id . at *12. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the claims for improper venue. (lvi) Objectors And Opt-Out Issues In Class Actions Chalian, et al. v. CVC Pharmacy, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135411 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2021). In this class action, the Court had previously heard oral argument on the motions for final settlement approval and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. It also considered the extensive objections to both motions. Thereafter, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing specific issues that the Court had identified. The Court indicated that it sought clarification from the parties on issues already raised, and was not inviting additional briefing from any other persons as the record was already extensive. On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed the supplemental briefing. On July 8, 2021, the Court ordered the parties to file the Second Amendment to their Settlement Agreement, and a complete copy of the Settlement Agreement for the Court to include with its forthcoming order. On July 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed the materials that the Court ordered. Then on July 15, 2021, as the Court was finalizing its order, Objector Ghassemian filed a Letter addressed to the Court. The Court struck the Letter, which purported to offer additional arguments in objection to the settlement, seemingly in response to Plaintiff’s March 19 Supplemental Brief. The Court pointed out that the time to object had long since passed. Further, the Court noted that Objector Ghassemian had previously filed extensive objections, and the Court had addressed them in its order. Insofar as Objector Ghassemian contended that Plaintiff’s March 19 Supplemental Brief triggered another opportunity to respond, the Court found that Objector Ghassemian’s argument came too late. Plaintiffs filed their Supplemental Brief on March 19, and Ghassemian filed her Letter almost four months later. The Court pointed out that it had stated in its order requiring supplemental briefing that it was not inviting further briefing from anyone but the parties, but noted that Ghassemian could have nevertheless sought to bring her additional objections to the Court’s attention much sooner. Moreover, the Court reasoned that Plaintiff’s most recent filing – the July 14 Court-ordered filing – revealed nothing that was not in the March 19 filing and that could have newly-triggered a need to respond. Instead, the Court opined that it appeared that Ghassemian filed her Letter because it seemed likely that the Court’s order was impending. In sum, even if the March 19 filing provided some new valid basis for objection (which the Court found it did not), the Court reasoned that Ghassemian’s Letter filed nearly four months later was exceedingly untimely. As such, the Court refused to considered Objector Ghassemian’s Letter and it stuck the Letter from the record. In Re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, 3 F.4th 457 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs in over 100 consolidated actions against four airlines, including Southwest, American, Delta, and United, alleged that the airlines violated § § 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act by colluding to decrease capacity and raise ticket prices. Id . at 459. Plaintiffs reached settlements with Southwest and American. The District Court preliminarily approved both settlements. Under the proposed settlements, Southwest agreed to pay $15 million and American agreed to pay $45 million. Two objectors, Bednarz and Frank, raised objections to the settlements on the grounds that the settlement notice should have detailed how the funds would be distributed. At the fairness hearing, the District Court approved the settlements and rejected the objections raised by Bednarz and Frank. Id . at 450. On the objectors’ appeal, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The D.C. Circuit found that the District Court’s settlement approval order was not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it dismissed claims against only two of the four Defendants in the consolidated action. The D.C. Circuit further determined that the District Court’s order did not dispose of the consolidated action or any of the individual cases in their entirety, and was therefore not a final judgment subject to appeal. In Re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171405 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021). Plaintiffs filed several consumer putative class claims alleging civil antitrust violations based on price- fixing within the optical disk drive (“ODD”) industry. The claims of the direct purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”) and the indirect purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”) were consolidated in multi-district litigation (“MDL”). Three groups of attorneys applied for appointment as class counsel and the Court received their bids under seal and thereafter appointed class counsel. The DPPs the entered into settlement agreements resolving their claims and obtained