18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

734 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition natural flavors, actually contained artificial vanilla and that the misrepresentation violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiff also brought claims of breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and the “first-filed rule,” asserting that this lawsuit was filed after Plaintiff’s counsel filed a similar action in California. Id. at *2. The Court granted Defendant’s motion. The Court found that the legal theories and claims and the factual allegations in both complaints were almost identical. The Court further determined that since Defendant was headquartered in California, the relevant witnesses were all in California, and other evidence was in California, the convenience factors weighed in favor of transfer of venue. The Court also reasoned that the two cases significantly overlapped with one another, and thus allowing both cases to proceed separately would present a risk of inconsistent outcomes and unfairly increase the burden on the federal court system. Id . at *4. The Court ruled that the judge in the California action could evaluate claims on behalf of an Illinois class, which also contained class members in other states. The Court concluded that the totality of the factors pointed to California’s stronger nexus to the relevant events, that California would be a more convenient forum, and that transferring the action to California would serve the interests of justice. Id . at *5. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. Recreational Equipment, Inc., et al. v. UKG, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51478 (W.D. Wash. March 18, 2021). Plaintiff, a retail company, filed a class action against Defendant, a vendor providing software services related to payroll administration to Plaintiff, alleging breach which resulted in damages in the form of a settlement payment and associated legal fees for an underlying lawsuit in California. Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which the Court denied. The Court reasoned that Defendant carried its burden to establish that the Northern District of California was a suitable alternative forum. Defendant argued that only two of the nine balances factors weighed in favor of venue remaining, including: (i) the location where the agreement was executed by Plaintiff; and (ii) Plaintiff’s choice of forum. The Court disagreed. The Court held that the contract at issue was governed by Washington law, and therefore, did not weigh in favor of transfer. The Court determined that the parties’ respective contacts with the forum weigh in favor of remaining in Washington, since Defendant was a Delaware corporation headquartered in Florida and Plaintiff was a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in the Western District of Washington. Id . at *8. Further, Defendant’s personnel spent the majority of a year working with Plaintiff’s personnel in Washington to implement the payroll administration system. The Court also reasoned that the costs of litigation, availability of compulsory process, and ease of access to sources of proof factors were neutral factors. Finally, as to public policy considerations, Plaintiff argued that there was a strong public interest in keeping the action in Washington in order to be in the forum of their injured residents, and because Plaintiff was a Washington corporation. The Court concluded that these factors weighted against transfer. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. Silverberg, et al. v. DryShips, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102658 (E.D.N.Y. May 28, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of investors, filed several securities fraud class actions against Defendant in New York. Their action was the seventh action filed, and was submitted to the Court by Defendant’s counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman ("Robbins Geller"), a firm with a Long Island office, as being located in Nassau or Suffolk counties. The Court noted that a civil case could be designated as a Long Island case if: (i) the case was removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk County, or (ii) if a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims occurred in Nassau or Suffolk County, or in the Eastern District of New York and Defendant or a Claimant resided in Nassau or Suffolk County. In the this matter, Robbins Geller answered “yes” when asked whether or not the events occurred in Nassau or Suffolk counties such that the venue was appropriate. Id. at *15. Robbins Geller asserted that “A substantial portion of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District of New York and in both Nassau County and Suffolk County. These cases arise from Defendants’ alleged issuance of materially false and misleading statements and omissions that were disseminated via the Internet throughout the United States, including in the Eastern District of New York and in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id . at *17. The Court ultimately determined that the representations made in Robbin Geller’s certification were false. The Court opined that after further inquiry, the record showed that Plaintiffs in these cases resided in New York County and Oklahoma. Furthermore, the Court noted that lead counsel submitted a letter in an effort to defend the choice of venue stating that the only ties to the Long Island