18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

650 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition based on the dueling statistical evidence. The Ninth Circuit ordered that after such a determination was made on remand, then the District Court should rule on whether predominance had been established. Prantil, et al. v. Arkema Inc. , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1876 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of property owners who were impacted by Defendant’s chemical fire, filed a class action asserting violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), as well as claims for negligence, trespass, and public nuisance. Plaintiffs also sought monetary damages in addition to injunctive relief in the form of medical monitoring and property remediation. Plaintiffs’ claims related to the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, which caused Defendant’s stock of volatile chemical compounds to combust and continue burning for nearly five days. According to Plaintiffs, property owners near Defendant’s facility suffered adverse health effects (including headaches, skin irritation, and respiratory issues) and property damage as a result of the fires. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the District Court granted. Defendant appealed, and the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s order. To begin its analysis, the Fifth Circuit noted that it would join three other federal courts of appeal in recognizing that scientific evidence relevant to a motion for class certification must pass the expert witness standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Id. at *7-8. To that end, Defendant contended that the District Court failed to perform an adequate Daubert analysis and the Fifth Circuit agreed, holding that “the District Court did not disregard its gate-keeping role, but its analysis of the expert reports reflect hesitation to apply Daubert ’s reliability standard with full force. Id. at *9. The Fifth Circuit also reasoned that the District Court erred in its Rule 23(b) predominance analysis because it broadly concluded that common questions would predominate without adequately considering Defendant’s arguments regarding the individualized nature of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages. By focusing on the fact that all injuries resulted from a single course of conduct, the Fifth Circuit opined that the District Court “drifted to the ‘figure-it-out-as-we-go-along’ approach, one to be avoided.” Id. at *14. With respect to Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, the Fifth Circuit also held that the District Court’s focus on the single cause of injury was insufficient, especially in light of the requirement that injunctive relief be reasonably specific. Id. at *20. As a result, the Fifth Circuit concluded that “more is needed than a common failure by the Defendant and the prospect that all class members could realize some benefit if the Defendant is compelled to act or desist.” Id. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for further analysis on class certification. Santiago, et al. v. City Of Chicago, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36742 (7th Cir. Dec. 13, 2021). Plaintiff, a severally physically disabled individual, filed a class action alleging that Defendant, the City of Chicago, wrongly impounded and destroyed her wheelchair accessible van because it deemed it abandoned pursuant to its policy of towing vehicles after they have been abandoned after a specific time period and notice procedure. Plaintiff asserted several counts divided between two classes of Plaintiffs, including: (i) a “Tow Class” alleging violation of due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; and (ii) a “Vehicle Disposal Class” for unjust enrichment, mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief and § 1983 violations. Id . at *5. The District Court previously had granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated the District Court’s ruling. The Seventh Circuit noted that the underlying order was unclear, but it was likely the case that the District Court certified a Tow Class for damages regarding only a § 1983 due process claim and a Vehicle Disposal Class for damages regarding only a § 1983 Takings claim. The Seventh Circuit determined that the District Court should have grounded its analysis with the elements of these claims, so that its predominance inquiry would have better trained “on the legal or factual questions” that qualified “each class member’s case as a genuine controversy." Id . at *15. The Seventh Circuit opined that the District Court improperly combined claims and failed to break them down into their constituent elements prior to making a finding on whether there were common, individual, and predominant issues present that might justify class certification. Similarly, for the Vehicle Disposal Class, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that the District Court should have identified the claim at issue and explained how Defendant’s arguments related to that claim. Id . at *19. The Seventh Circuit held that the District Court failed to properly engage in the rigorous analysis required for class certification under Rule 23, and thus abused its discretion. The Seventh Circuit concluded that it did not have enough information to reach a finding either to affirm the class certification order as correct or incorrect, and it could not make a determination as to whether common issues predominated. For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit vacated the District Court’s ruling for further proceedings consistent with its order.