18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

730 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition of the collective bargaining agreements as implemented by the Pension Fund, lost preexisting eligibility for 30- and-out early retirement benefits. Defendant contended that Plaintiff failed to meet the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a) because a conflict existed between Plaintiff’s interests and some members of the putative class. Defendant offered five declarations in support of its argument, all which stated that they were aware that the terms of the proposed 2018 CBA would eliminate their ability to work toward the 30-and-out benefit, but they voted to ratify the 2018 CBA because they believed it was in their best interests and the best interests of the union members as a whole. Id . at *14. The Court ruled that the declarations supported the conclusion that an intra-class conflict existed as to the members’ interests and positions on concession of the 30-and-out benefit. Plaintiff asserted that the fact that some members supported ratification of the CBA demonstrated that there was not an intra-class conflict, and that those class members who disagreed could opt-out of the class. The Court disagreed with Plaintiff’s contention. It determined that Plaintiff failed to meet the adequacy requirement, as Plaintiff did not demonstrate that he would adequately and fairly protect the interests of the class. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (lxxvi) The Mootness Doctrine In Class Action Litigation Bais Yaakov Of Spring Valley, et al. v. ACT, Inc., 12 F.4th 81 (1st Cir. 2021). Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that Defendant, a college-entrance examination services provider, sent three unsolicited facsimiles advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). After the parties mutually agreed on a deadline for the class certification motion, Defendant tendered Plaintiff an offer of judgment under Rule 68. Defendant previously offered to pay $1,600 for each fax (including $1,500 for violating the TCPA and $100 for violating the New York General Business Laws). Defendant contended that this figure represented the maximum amount that Plaintiff could be awarded damages; Defendant also offered to be enjoined from sending any additional unsolicited faxes to Plaintiff and offered to pay attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff moved for class certification four days after the Rule 68 offer, and did not respond to the offer within 14 days after it was served, which meant that the unaccepted offer was withdrawn by Rule 68(a) and (b). The District Court certified the question of whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment in a putative class action moots Plaintiff’s entire action if the offer is made before a class certification motion is filed. In certifying the question, the District Court accepted Defendant’s contention that had Plaintiff accepted the offer, it would have provided Plaintiff with all the relief that it would be entitled to if Plaintiff had prevailed in the action. The First Circuit observed that Defendant advanced a stratagem for defeating motions for class certification insofar as it offered only the named Plaintiff full payment for individual claims, and then moved to dismiss the suit as moot before the District Court had a chance to consider whether Plaintiff can represent the putative class. The First Circuit concluded that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer cannot, by itself, moot a Plaintiff’s claim, as an unaccepted offer does not provide any relief on its own. Subsequently, the District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and entered judgment against Plaintiff, finding that class certification was unwarranted and that Plaintiff’s individual claim was rendered moot by Defendant’s offer to pay the full amount of that claim ($46,500) and its promise not to send further faxes. Plaintiff appealed that decision, and the First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The First Circuit found that the District Court had reasonably determined that individual issues regarding whether party provided permission to receive the faxes would predominate over common questions. The First Circuit also declined to revive Plaintiff’s claim individual claim for injunctive relief, since Defendant deleted Plaintiff’s fax number and had not sent it another fax in over eight years, and there was unlikely to be any future harm. The First Circuit reversed and remanded Plaintiff’ claim for individual damages for the three faxes it received from Defendant, finding that simply because Defendant sent Plaintiff a check for the claims, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, an unaccepted settlement offer was not enough to render these individual claims moot. The First Circuit therefore affirmed the District Court’s denial of class certification and reversed as to judgment on Plaintiff’s individual claims. Banks, et al. v. Booth, 3 F.4th 445 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of inmates at D.C. correctional facilities, filed a class action asserting causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and for class certification. The District Court appointed two amici to investigate and report on the conditions at D.C. correctional facilities. They submitted a report that found that the quality-of-life in quarantine units was substantially worse than for the general population. The investigation also uncovered delays in receiving care, lack of personal protective equipment and social distancing, and lack of access to confidential legal phone calls.