18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

686 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition contract claims, which were not dismissed," thereby precluding final judgment. The Court’s previous order dismissed the fraud claims against the Nicks Defendants and Gregory D. Rueb, Rueb & Motta, APLC, the Rueb Law Firm, APLC and Howard L. Nations, APC. The primary issue before the Court was whether Plaintiffs demonstrated that there was a just reason for delay in filing an appeal. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish any potential hardship or injustice that would result from delaying their appeal of the Court’s order. Id . at *5. The Court also found that the dismissed fraud claims were intertwined with Plaintiffs’ remaining breach of contract and malpractice claims against Defendants. The Court noted that the possibility of piecemeal review outweighed any potential danger of denying justice by delay. For these reasons, the Court denied the motion for final judgment. James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69645 (N.D. Cal. April 9, 2021). Plaintiff, a driver, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages and failed to pay for waiting time in violation of the California Labor Law. Defendant filed a motion seeking clarification of the Court’s previous class certification ruling, which stated that "Proposition 22 does not apply retroactively,” arguing that the issue was a merits question that should not have been decided in a class certification order. Id . at *1. The Court agreed with Defendant that the retroactive application of Proposition 22 was ultimately a merits question that would dispose entirely of Plaintiff’s claims, and thus it should not be decided in the context of class certification. Id . at *1-2. The Court noted that it would have been required to enter judgment in favor of Defendant if it agreed that Proposition 22 applied retroactively to bar Plaintiffs’ claims. Id . at *2. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion, and clarified that it was not deciding the merits of whether Proposition 22 applied retroactively in its previous order. The Court also noted that it would decide the issue on a class-wide basis. Smith, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223559 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of Ohio residents and businesses, filed several consolidated class actions alleging that Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the Ohio Corrupt Activity Act by participating in an illegal bribery scheme that lasted from 2017 to 2020. Defendants also were named in an action seeking criminal charges against them (the “Criminal Action”). The alleged criminal acts occurred when former Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Larry Householder, and his alleged co-conspirators (the “Householder Enterprise”), received $60 million from Defendant FirstEnergy to further their political and personal interests. In exchange, the Householder Enterprise “coordinated” the passage of House Bill 6 (“HB6”), a billion- dollar energy bailout that purportedly saved two failing Ohio nuclear power plants that were affiliated with FirstEnergy. Id. at *3. As part of the bailout, Plaintiffs incurred monthly surcharges on their electric bills. The Court previously had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Defendants moved to reconsider and to vacate the Court’s ruling. The Court granted Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and vacated the class certification ruling. Defendants argued that the Court granted the motion before Defendants’ response was due, and thus treated the motion as unopposed. Defendants contended that pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, Defendants’ response was due "30 days after . . . the transcripts from all depositions of named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ experts are available." ("Scheduling Order"). Id . at *5. Since the depositions had not yet occurred, Defendants asserted that their deadline to respond had not passed. The Court noted that Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion on June 28, 2021, and in order to comply with the scheduling order, the parties were required to agree to schedule depositions of the named Plaintiffs prior to July 19, 2021, which did not happen. Thus, the Court noted that the parties were in violation of the Court’s scheduling order. The Court likewise observed that the depositions still have not occurred, were not even noticed, and that the parties have been in violation of its scheduling order for nearly six month. Accordingly, the Court opined that even though Defendants were in violation of the Court’s order, it will grant the request for reconsideration, vacate the decision certifying this case as a class action, and provide them the opportunity to respond to the motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and vacated the order that had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Walls, et al. v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14316 (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint without the Sherman Act claim. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and the Court granted the motion. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that