18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 715 named Plaintiffs neither resided in nor had they alleged that they had suffered an injury in the 31 other states and territories, the Court dismissed those claims for want of standing. In so ruling, the Court relied upon U.S. Supreme Court case law precedent that made two principles of law clear, including: (i) a Plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press; and (ii) class actions do not change the requirements of standing. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs’ first and third theories of economic harm satisfied Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement, but that the second failed to allege facts from which the injury could be valued. The Court also dismissed the consumers’ medical monitoring claims because they failed to trace their alleged injuries to many of the Defendants in the case beyond “conclusory” allegations that lumped in the companies. As such, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss in part. In Re Valsartan, Losartan, And Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14766 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers and third-party purchasers of valsartan-containing drugs (“VCDs”), filed two class actions asserting a total of 27 causes of action against Defendants, a group comprised of manufacturers, wholesalers, and consumer-level distributors of VCDs. Plaintiffs’ lawsuits were initiated after an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) revealed that Defendants’ VCDs contained probable human carcinogens. Plaintiffs’ key allegations were contained in two relevant complaints relative to the economic loss master complaint (“ELMC”) and the medical monitoring master complaint (“MMMC”), which were consolidated for purposes of this multi-district litigation. The ELMC alleged that Defendants’ subsequent recalls of the VCDs caused Plaintiffs to pay twice for drugs that treated the same conditions, and the MMMC claimed that, as a result of ingesting Defendants’ contaminated VCDs, Plaintiffs were at an increased risk of developing cancer. Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss, and the Court addressed Defendants’ arguments in these motions through four separate orders. With respect to Defendants’ arguments relating to Article III standing, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motions. On this point, Defendants contended that Plaintiffs’ complaints should be dismissed because: (i) the ELMC failed to allege an injury-in-fact; (ii) the MMMC failed to assert an injury fairly traceable to all Defendants; and (iii) both complaints asserted claims under the laws of states in which Plaintiffs did not reside or suffer an injury. Id. at *31. The Court held that the ELMC asserted a sufficient economic injury because Plaintiffs included enough factual support as to allow a fact-finder to value Plaintiffs’ alleged injury. In terms of Defendants’ traceability argument, the Court reasoned that Plaintiffs failed to plead an injury traceable to all named Defendants, but it also noted that such an issue could be amended “with relative ease.” Id. at *57. In terms of Plaintiffs’ standing across all states, however, the Court held that Plaintiffs did not have standing to assert claims under the laws of states where they did not reside or suffer an injury. The Court noted the fact that Plaintiffs asserted claims under the laws of all 50 states, but Plaintiffs themselves represented only 21 states. Since U.S. Supreme Court case law precedent established that class actions do not alter a standing analysis, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims deriving from the laws of states in which they did not reside or suffer an injury. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to Article III standing. Krukas, et al. v. AARP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211105 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Defendants AARP Inc., AARP Services Inc. ("ASI"), and AARP Insurance Plan ("AARP"), alleging a violation of the Washington D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"), and common law claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs sued over their purchase of a Medicare supplemental health insurance policy, also known as a "Medigap" policy, offered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. ("United") and administered by the AARP. Id . at *2. Plaintiffs asserted that the AARP wrongly retained a 4.95% "commission" on the sale of the insurance that the AARP was not entitled to receive and misled Plaintiffs into buying their insurance policies by failing to disclose the nature and extent of its financial interest in the sale of AARP Medigap policies. Id . Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court denied because Plaintiffs adequately alleged financial harm constituting injury-in-fact and alleged facts sufficient to plead each count. Subsequently, the Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to establish any concrete injury stemming from Defendants’ conduct, as they did not assert that the AARP Medigap insurance would have been less expensive or that there was any lower-priced comparable insurance policy that they could have purchased had the payment been disclosed and prompted them to look elsewhere for comparable coverage. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on account of Plaintiffs’ lack of standing.