18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 733 of the four Defendants had any contacts with the United States that would subject him to jurisdiction in the United States or the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court ruled that the remaining Defendants were all citizens and residents of Libya and their extraterritorial actions were not alleged to have had any effects in the United States. Id . at *27. Accordingly, the Court, sua sponte , dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. (lxxx) Typicality Issues In Class Action Litigation Farr, et al. v. Acima Credit LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126431 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021). Plaintiff filed a consumer class action alleging against Defendant Acima Credit LLC for violations of California’s Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). Plaintiff alleged that Acima unlawfully charged her a processing fee when she applied to finance certain merchandise. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. The Court denied the motion on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to meet the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). Plaintiff claimed that when she wanted to lease furniture at a non-party store, she completed an online application with Defendant, pursuant to which she was approved to lease the furniture. Plaintiff was required to pay a $50 processing fee, which Plaintiff alleged was improperly “lumped” into the purchase price without her knowledge. Id . at *2. Defendant contended that all putative class members except Plaintiff and two others were subject to mandatory arbitration of their claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement included in the online application. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s claims were not typical to other members of the proposed class. The Court agreed with Defendant. The Court reasoned that even if Plaintiff’s claims arose from the same course of conduct (the charging of processing fees for the rental-purchase agreements) and were based on the same legal theories as the claims of the proposed class (violations of the Karnette Act, the CLRA, and the UCL), individuals who did not opt-out of the arbitration agreement were subject to the mandatory arbitration and class waiver defenses, which was not applicable to Plaintiff. Id . at *17. The Court explained that case law authorities in the Ninth Circuit had denied class certification based upon the existence of an arbitration agreement and class action waiver applicable to unnamed class members but not the proposed class representative. Id . Accordingly, the Court concluded that Plaintiff could not represent a class made up of individuals who may be subject to the mandatory arbitration agreement and class action waiver. Id . For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Williams, et al. v. Cook County, Case No. 18-CV-1456 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of African- American individuals arrested on criminal charges, filed a class action alleging that Defendants, the Sheriff of Cook County and the County, denied them participation in the Sheriff’s electronic monitoring program (“EM”) because the Sheriff believed the terms of release to be too lenient given the alleged severity of Plaintiffs’ crimes. Plaintiffs were thus detained in jail for weeks prior to their bond hearings, which they alleged violated their right to due process under the state and federal constitutions. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Court denied. Defendants argued that each Plaintiffs’ case was different from the others, and contained no uniformity such that the claims were not typical to one another. Defendants contended that some Plaintiffs were issued bond orders on standardized, preprinted forms with no indication as to the reason the EM was denied, and some were provided the reasons the EM was denied or that a particular Plaintiff was ineligible for the EM. Plaintiffs contended that the claims of the class members need not be identical, and that they were all subject to Defendants’ common practice of administratively reviewing bond ordered for pretrial release, and all members were impacted by the practice in the same way by prolonging their detention in jail. The Court determined that although all Plaintiffs’ complaints were in connection with the pretrial bond process, the differences and lack of clarity in the bond orders were sufficient to show a lack of typicality. Id . at 7. The Court opined that each of the Plaintiffs’ bond orders would have to be explained in order to determine the intent of the bond judge and whether the Sheriff was within his rights in denying placement in the EM program. The Court concluded that there were significant legal questions would prevent sufficient typicality to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3). For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (lxxxi) Venue Issues In Class Actions Gierwatowski, et al. v. Trader Joe ’ s Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120959 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s almond granola cereal, marketed as containing vanilla and other