18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

692 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition villages and municipalities ringing Chicago," were put in place as a result of a "racketeering Enterprise" operated by Defendants. Id . at *4-5. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. Plaintiff’s complaint contained two counts for violation of RICO and was based on allegations that Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plaintiff and the proposed class. The Court explained that to sufficiently state a claim for a violation of § 1962(c), Plaintiff must show "conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity." Id . at *25. Further, to assert standing under the RICO’s standing requirement, Plaintiff must show that Defendant’s violation “was both a proximate and but for cause of her injury." Id . at *26. Defendants contended that Plaintiff had not alleged a concrete and actual injury to his business or property because he did not allege that he ever paid his $100 ticket. The Court determined that whether or not he was actually injured did not matter, as Plaintiff lacked standing due to his failure to plead facts plausibly suggesting that any injury was proximately caused by Defendants’ conduct. Id . The Court agreed with Defendants that the direct cause of the purported injuries of Plaintiff and the proposed class members was not Defendants’ alleged RICO violations, but rather their failure to follow the provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code. Id . at *29. The Court held that Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege any viable theory under which Plaintiff or any member of the proposed class received a ticket for committing a traffic violation that they did not actually commit. Therefore, the Court concluded that class members’ own conduct was the direct cause of any injuries they suffered. The Court reasoned that although Plaintiff believed that he would never have been ticketed for making a rolling right-hand turn but for Defendant’s "corruptly installed" RLC, there was no suggestion in the pleadings that Plaintiff had not committed the traffic violation for which he was ticketed. Id . at *6. For these reasons, the Court held that Plaintiff lacked standing, and it granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Postpichal, et al. v. Cricket Wireless , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146166 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of wireless cellular customers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s failure to deliver reliable 4G wireless to customers who paid premium prices for 4G phones and plans violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs contended that they were led to believe that they would be able to receive 4G coverage, but Defendant actually did not have the coverage available in the areas they lived until years later. The Court found that the class as defined was sufficiently numerous, as it contained hundreds of thousands of wireless customers. Defendant argued that proposed class members lacked a "uniform class-wide experience" and that Plaintiffs’ RICO claim would turn on individual defenses, which thereby warranted denial of class certification Id . at *19. The Court reasoned that neither commonality nor predominance required that Plaintiffs have the same exact experience leading up to the harm. The Court opined that the common harm to all class members was that they were all subjected to Defendant’s fraudulent scheme and thus paid more for phones to have 4G, which was not actually available to them. The Court also determined that all stores had the same marketing materials and the same offers available, so that customers came to the same understanding about Defendant’s 4G service in the same way based on substantially similar marketing materials. The Court therefore ruled that the class met the commonality and predominance requirements. As to typicality, the Court held that Plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the class, as they lived outside of Defendant’s 4G footprint and bought a 4G phone and plan in order to get faster service that they never received. The Court also concluded that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication for Plaintiffs’ claims as the claims of individuals would be relatively small. For these reason, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Smith, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216239 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 9, 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 (“RICO”), and the Ohio Corrupt Activity Act (“OCAA”) 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. Plaintiffs moved to class certification, and the Court granted the motion. Plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting of “all persons and entities resident in the state of Ohio who have and/or will have to pay a monthly surcharge