18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 713 requirement, which (as its name suggested) states that a player’s eligibility for benefits turned on a comprehensive evaluation, whereas previously, a Social Security determination of disability also established a player’s eligibility for T&P disability benefits. The CBA made the “whole person” evaluation process effective in April 2024. Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue some claims because their alleged injury, i.e. , the loss of benefits was too speculative and attenuated, or not redressable. Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs’ claims failed on the merits and they moved to dismiss certain claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) as well. The Court agreed that Plaintiffs had failed to show Article III standing as to some of their challenges and failed to state a claim as to others. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety. First, as to Counts 1-4 of Plaintiffs’ complaint, which dealt with alleged violations stemming from the changes made to Plaintiffs’ T&P disability benefits, the Court determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the whole-person evaluation process because they had failed to show that they would suffer an injury-in-fact. The Court reasoned that the whole-person evaluation process could only harm Plaintiffs at some future time as this requirement was not to take effect until April 2024 with reevaluations between then and April 2026. Further, the Court found that Plaintiffs could not challenge the Social Security off- set either because their disability benefits did not vest, and thus they had failed to state a valid claim for relief. As to Counts 5-7, which covered purported misrepresentations relating to these benefits, the Court dismissed these claims on standing grounds because Plaintiffs had not shown that any injury was fairly traceable to Defendants’ alleged actions. Finally, in Count 8, Plaintiffs asserted a claim under § 301 of the LMRA, in that Defendant breached the 2020 CBA. Plaintiffs contended that their injuries could be readily redressed by requiring a re-vote on the 2020 CBA. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy posed a threshold problem for Count 8 because in order to have Article III standing, Plaintiffs were required to allege that it was likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that their injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. Because whether a re-vote would lead to the elimination of the provisions at issue was speculative at best, the Court dismissed Count 8 for lack of standing too. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Heredia, et al. v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43704 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action claiming that Defendant, which provides assisted living and memory care for senior citizens and persons with disabilities, failed to staff its facilities at a level sufficient to provide the care it promised to its residents. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs pointed to provisions of Defendant’s standard contracts stating that its facilities “will use its resident assessment system to identify the level of care necessary to ensure that residents receive the services they require.” Id. at *1-2. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant did not sufficiently staff its facilities to meet the needs of residents, which thereby resulted in harm to the residents. Plaintiffs’ complaint asserted violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), in addition to a claim for elder financial abuse under § 15610.30 of the California Welfare & Institutions Code. In terms of remedies, Plaintiffs sought equitable relief in the form of restitution under the UCL and injunctive relief under both the UCL and the CLRA. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The Court noted that, to proceed with their claims for equitable relief, Plaintiffs needed to show that they lacked an adequate remedy at law. With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim for equitable restitution under the UCL, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an inadequate remedy at law. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ complaint did not allege that they lacked an adequate legal remedy. The Court also reasoned that Plaintiffs did not explain why their claims for damages – which were based on the same factual predicate as their claim for restitution and seek the same relief, i.e. , the return of fees paid to Sunrise – were “any less prompt, certain, or efficient than restitution.’” Id. at *12-13. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for equitable restitution with prejudice. In terms of injunctive relief, Plaintiff sought an injunction requiring Defendant to: (i) disclose that Defendant did not ensure sufficient staffing to meet the needs of its residents, and (ii) stop charging its residents monthly personal care fees until it modified its “policies and procedures regarding staffing.” Id. at *15. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring a claim for injunctive relief, but the Court disagreed. It found that Plaintiff Ganz alleged that she faced a threat of repeated injury that was sufficiently “real and immediate.” Id. at *17. To that end, Plaintiff Ganz claimed that she was not provided with walker assistance, did not receive at least two showers per week, and was found on the floor numerous times. The Court also held that Plaintiffs properly sought a public injunction in light of their claims of ongoing violations by Defendant that harm its residents and the general public. Thus, the