18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 705 various filings and records. The Sixth Circuit vacated the District Court’s approval of the original settlement and instructed it to "begin the Rule 23(e) process anew." Id. at *2. On remand, the District Court approved a new settlement agreement, which provided a settlement fund of $29.99 million, with $16 million for payments to class members, whose damages were allegedly about $50 million. Id . Andrews sought a $150,000 payment to drop his objections, which the parties had rejected. Id . Andrews argued that Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims, but failed to indicate any reason why. The Sixth Circuit determined that Andrews’s allegations that the structure of the payout of leftover funds would be a kickback to Defendant was without merit. The Sixth Circuit found that the District Court correctly granted service awards to the named Plaintiffs because of the substantial amount of time spent on the case. Finally, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the District Court did not err in finding that Plaintiff and class counsel were adequate representatives of the class. The Sixth Circuit therefore affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting settlement approval and dismissing Andrews’s objections. (lxx) Settlement Approval Issues In Class Actions A.B., et al. v. Regents Of The University Of California, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218640 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of patients at various University of California at Los Angeles medical facilities, filed a putative class action against Defendants alleging violations of Title IX, negligence/gross negligence, violations of the California Unruh Act, sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ratification. Id . at *1. After the parties settled, the Court provisionally certified Plaintiffs’ proposed class, granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement, and approved the notice that would be directed to all class members. Following receipt of notice but after the deadline date to opt-out of the settlement, six class members filed a motion for relief from the settlement pursuant to 60(b)(1). The Court denied the motion. The Court explained that when a member of a class seeks a "tardy opt-out" from a class action settlement, various factors should be applied to evaluate whether the failure was due to excusable neglect, including: (i) the degree of compliance with the best practicable notice procedures; (ii) when notice was actually received and if not timely received, why not; (iii) what caused the delay, and whose responsibility was it; (iv) how quickly the belated opt- out request was made once notice was received; (v) how many class members want to opt-out; (v) and whether allowing a belated opt-out would affect either the settlement or finality of the judgment. Id . at *3. With respect to the first and second factors, the Court held that the proposed notice of class action settlement was sufficient and the Settlement Administrator physically and electronically mailed the notice to 5,530 pre-identified class members in February of 2021. The Settlement Administrator also engaged in a marketing campaign on social media and through Google to spread word of the settlement. The Court noted that five of the six class members averred that they received the notice at their physical and/ or electronic addresses before the opt-out deadline. Therefore, the Court held that these factor weighed against a finding of excusable neglect. As to the third and fourth factors, the class members’ reasons for delay varied, but the Court found all rationales inadequate for failing to meet the opt-out deadline. Finally, as to the fifth and sixth factors, the Court held that the opt-outs could undermine the settlement by permitting other members to seek similar relief from the Court by simply claiming to not have carefully reviewed the notice before the deadline. Id . at *7. The Court reasoned that opening the door to late opt-out requests would prejudice Defendants who have already decided not to withdraw from the settlement agreement based on the number of members who timely excluded themselves. Id . at *8. Therefore, considering the relevant factors, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs failed to make a showing of excusable neglect, and it thereby denied the motion for relief. Banh, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150690 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a class action alleging that the information system in Defendant’s car, including the navigation system, audio system, backup camera, Bluetooth, and Apple CarPlay, caused the cars to malfunction. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant knew or should have known about the defect, and asserted claims of: (i) breach of express warranty; (ii) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (iii) violation of state consumer protection laws; and (iv) fraudulent concealment. The parties ultimately settled the matter and Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval. The Court granted the motion. The Court found that the settlement class met the requirements of Rule 23 for purposes of the settlement. The Court also held that the settlement agreement was fair and adequate. The Court determined that there was no evidence of collusion, there was no clear sailing agreement, and the attorneys’ fees award would not diminish the benefits awarded to class members under the settlement. The Court ruled that there were substantial risks involved in further litigating the case, and Plaintiffs received substantial benefits under the terms of the settlement. The Court