18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 685 argued that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies within the applicable limitations period. Plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to equitable tolling during the pendency of the class claims in Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (" Harris "), an action in which they were putative class members. Harris asserted that Defendant’s "Fitness-for-Duty program" violated the ADA, both under a "disparate treatment" theory and a "disparate impact" theory. Id . at *4. Defendant argued that the Harris Plaintiffs did not assert a failure to accommodate claim. The Court agreed with Defendant. It determined that the elements of disparate treatment/disparate impact claims and the elements of a failure to accommodate claim were significantly different such that tolling of the claims was not appropriate. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s claim for failure to accommodate. Frank, et al. v. Crawley Petroleum Corp., 992 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff owned a royalty interest in an oil and gas well operated by Defendant in Oklahoma. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant alleging underpayment of royalties owed on natural-gas production. Following the grant of class certification, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss his case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), stating that he "d[id] not wish to proceed with this litigation." Id . at 991. The District Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, with the following conditions attached: (i) in the event counsel for Plaintiff filed any suit seeking to certify substantially the same class against Defendant, it would be filed in the same district and assigned to the same judge; (ii) all discovery accomplished in this case would carry over to the new case; and (iii) Defendant would be permitted to file an application for costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Rule 41(d). Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter filed an appeal, challenging the imposed conditions. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit first analyzed whether it had appellate jurisdiction and concluded in the affirmative. The Tenth Circuit opined that Plaintiff’s counsel was expressly referenced in the order and was thus directly bound by it. Further, although Plaintiff’s counsel was a non-party to the order, he had standing to appeal, and the order was a final, appealable order. The Tenth Circuit thus denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. As to the merits of the appeal, the Tenth Circuit explained that Rule 41(a)(2) "permits a District Court to dismiss an action . . . upon such terms and conditions” as it deems proper. Id . at 998. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the District Court’s imposition of conditions constituted an abuse of discretion insofar as they required that any substantially similar putative class action against Defendant filed by Plaintiff’s counsel on behalf of another Plaintiff be filed in the same District Court and assigned to the same judge and permitting Defendant to seek costs and attorneys’ fees under Rule 41(d) if such a suit was filed. Id . at 999. The Tenth Circuit found that Defendant would not have been prejudiced by the dismissal because the same result would have been obtained if Plaintiff, rather than dismissing his claim, had pursued class certification and lost. The Tenth Circuit thus ruled that the District Court did not explain how Defendant was prejudiced by Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal. Id . at 1000. The Tenth Circuit reasoned that Plaintiff’s counsel could file a new suit with a new Plaintiff in a new forum regardless of the outcome of the motion for voluntary dismissal, thereby indicating that the request for dismissal was not bad faith. The Tenth Circuit opined that Defendant was subject to the risk of repeated class action claims brought by new Plaintiffs regardless of whether the District Court granted the motion for voluntary dismissal. Id. at 1001. The Tenth Circuit concluded that if Defendant was no better off if the District Court resolved the motion, it could not be found that granting the motion would create legal prejudice to Defendant. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit ruled that because Defendant failed to identify any legal prejudice it would suffer from the dismissal, the imposition of conditions was an abuse of discretion. The Tenth Circuit thereby reversed and remanded the dismissal imposing those conditions and remanded to the District Court. Gaudet, et al. v. Howard L. Nations, APC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126065 (E.D. La. July 7, 2021). In this class action against lawyers over their handling of a mass claim, the Court previously had dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims alleging fraud against Defendants. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion that the Court enter final judgment as to the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ fraud claims against Defendants. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs claimed that the three elements necessary for entry of final judgment certification were met, including: (i) the litigation involved multiple claims for relief against multiple parties; (ii) a final determination was made with respect to at least one, but fewer than all, claims or parties; and (iii) there was no just reason for delaying an appeal. In support of their assertion that there was no just reason for delaying an appeal, Plaintiffs cited the fact that the Court also had granted the parties’ request to continue the trial. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs had not satisfied the requirements for granting a Rule 54(b) motion. Defendants argued that some of the claims remained against some Defendants, and that Plaintiffs’ fraud claims "overlap factually with the legal malpractice and breach of