Source: https://pingpdf.com/pdf-class-action-roundup-alston-bird.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:25:01+00:00

Document:
In this edition of Class Action Roundup, we feature decisions from the third quarter of 2016, covering everything from pizza delivery and Uber drivers to payday lenders, canned tuna manufacturers, and even flushable toilet wipes. The courts continue to take a close look at class certification and how plaintiffs are defining the class as well as the analysis of numerosity and predominance. The courts have also weighed in on issues of class action waivers and arbitration agreements, deciding on the timing of agreements and whether the class of plaintiffs is covered by a waiver or not. The employment arena continues to be fraught with class action cases covering overtime rules, pay for meal breaks, and definitions of contractor or employee status. Court cases already filed over the DOL’s new overtime rule likely means we’ll witness more litigation on that topic into 2017. Matters involving data breaches and other privacy issues are again featured in this issue, with cases dealing with how much private information is “private” to warrant harm and the nuances of TCPA rules in play for health care providers. This issue wraps up with a standard summary of settlements, including cases dealing with settlement funds and coupons. We hope you have enjoyed this issue and invite you to send any feedback on this or other publications from our Class Action team.
 Seventh Circuit: Individualized Proof of Injury Can Wait Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper Co., No. 15-2386 (7th Cir.) (Aug. 4, 2016). Affirming class certification. Containerboard producers argued that the putative class of purchasers was unable to use common evidence to show the fact of injury on a classwide basis. The containerboard producers argued that it was not enough for the purchasers to prove aggregate injury and damages without then allocating damages to each individual class member. The Seventh Circuit rejected the producers’ position, finding that individualized proof of injury was not required at the class certification stage.
Are you “Dealing with Multiple Enforcement and Investigative Techniques”? Join Kim Peretti February 2 in Atlanta at the ABA Consumer Protection Conference to learn how.
 No Illusion: Payday Lender Cannot Compel Claims into “Illusory and Unavailable Arbitral Forum” Parm v. National Bank of California, No. 15-12509 (11th Cir.) (Aug. 29, 2016). Affirming denial of arbitration. Northern Bank of California must defend RICO claims by a putative class in the Northern District of Georgia. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the bank’s arguments seeking to compel arbitration of the named plaintiff’s claims challenging its online payday lending practices. The named plaintiff’s arbitration agreement contained a forum-selection clause mandating arbitration before a representative of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe under its rules. The court found that, because the forum and its rules did not exist when the agreement was executed in 2013, the agreement required use of “an illusory and unavailable arbitral forum.” Concluding the clause was “an integral aspect of the parties’ agreement,” the court refused to substitute an arbitrator and affirmed the lower court’s denial of arbitration.
Alston & Bird welcomes two high-profile litigation partners to our New York office.
and predominance requirements through trial because he failed to prove “class-wide privity of contract between The Money Store and those borrowers whose loans it only serviced, and did not own,” the Second Circuit affirmed the decertification order and vacated the jury award, leaving the named plaintiff with $134.00 for his individual claim.
 Warranty Claims Float, but Other Claims Go Down the Drain in Flushable Wipes Class Action Meta v. Target Corp., No. 14-cv-00832 (N.D. Ohio) (Aug. 29, 2016). Judge Nugent. Granting in part and denying in part class certification. An Ohio federal judge certified a class of consumers alleging that Target’s Up & Up flushable wipes cause plumbing problems, but only for warranty claims. Because Target had already taken the wipes off the market, Judge Nugent denied injunctive relief but granted class certification on the plaintiffs’ warranty claims, holding that under a breach-of-warranty theory, all purchasers are affected when a product does not live up to the statements on the packaging. Fraud claims, on the other hand, must proceed individually because consumers chose to purchase the wipes for different reasons. In addition, because the lead plaintiff did not present evidence of a harm separate from his decision to buy the wipes or a loss beyond the product price, allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment merely duplicated the warranty claim.
Ride along with Frank Hirsch and Michael Barry in “The Spokeo Result: Who’s Peddling Uphill and Who’s Just Coasting Down” in the Consumer Financial Services Law Report.
Dole’s description of its products was misleading. But the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to decertify an unjust enrichment class because the plaintiff could not prove damages on a classwide basis.
 Making Employee–Independent Contractor Distinctions on a Classwide Basis Williams v. Jani-King International Inc., No. 15-2049 (3rd Cir.) (Sept. 21, 2016). Affirming class certification. The Third Circuit affirmed the grant of class certification against commercial cleaning franchisor Jani-King in a lawsuit alleging that its franchisees were misclassified as independent contractors. The court rejected Jani-King’s primary argument that the question of employee status could not be resolved through classwide evidence. The Third Circuit held that franchisee classification issues were susceptible to classwide determination by looking to common documentary evidence: the franchise agreement, policy manuals, training manuals, and testimony about those documents.
 Truck Driver Subclasses Lose Class Status Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, No. 08-cv-00318 (S.D. Cal.) (July 20, 2016). Judge Bencivengo. Decertifying subclasses. A California district court decertified three of five subclasses of Penske employees alleging that the trucking company failed to provide meal breaks, but still deducted pay for those breaks. The court found no proof that Penske had an across-the-board policy of denying meal breaks. According to the court, “[t]hat defendants did not schedule the employees’ meal breaks … does not establish that defendants did not provide the opportunity to take a timely meal break. Leaving the decision of when to break to the employee in the field is not the same as prohibiting or discouraging timely meal breaks.” The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the two subclasses left intact to show a uniform policy that Penske failed to provide a second meal break at the end of the tenth hour of a shift.
 Blow to Big Bank as Employees Win Class Certification In Re: SunTrust Banks Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 08-cv-03384 (N.D. Ga.) (Aug. 17, 2016). Judge Story. Certifying class. In a class action dating back to 2008, a Georgia district court granted class certification to thousands of SunTrust employees who alleged that the bank mishandled their retirement funds under ERISA. The class includes employees who participated in the bank’s 401(k) plan from mid-2007 through mid-2011 and lost money because SunTrust invested funds in its own common stock. The plaintiffs claim that SunTrust knew its stock was declining from its business activity in the subprime housing market and failed to disclose the nonpublic information to plan participants. The class certification ruling comes after the class definition was amended to include only those employees who sustained an economic loss as a result of the investment after SunTrust argued that some employees benefited from the practice.
 Domino’s Drivers Seeking Slice of Delivery Charges Win Certification Mooney v. Domino’s Pizza Inc., No. 14-cv-13723 (D. Mass.) (Sept. 1, 2016). Judge Talwani. Granting certification for two classes of plaintiffs. Domino’s delivery drivers were granted class certification in a suit alleging that the company violated Massachusetts law by keeping delivery charges for itself instead of handing them over to the drivers. The court concluded that the case dealt with common questions of fact—whether Domino’s adequately informed customers that the delivery charge was not a tip. The evidence necessary to resolve that question was common to all class members and therefore did not present a barrier to certification. The court also rejected Domino’s attempt to rely on a recent Eighth Circuit case that vacated certification to a group of its drivers based on an interpretation of Minnesota law. Due to the differences between the Massachusetts and Minnesota tip statutes, the Massachusetts drivers were permitted to pursue their claims on a classwide basis.
members should not receive an administrative exemption for overtime pay. That was enough to defeat class certification.
 Just Certify It Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services Inc., No. 14-cv-01508 (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 19, 2016). Judge Freeman. Granting class certification. A California district court granted class certification to a group of Nike retail store employees who claimed failure to pay wages for end-ofshift security checks. Nike argued that the employees were inspected for different amounts of time and under different circumstances. The court disagreed. Because Nike applied the bag-check policy universally to all employees, no individual inquiries were required and certification was permissible.
Cole v. Marathon Oil Corp., No. 16-cv-10642 (E.D. Mich.) (Oct. 25, 2016). Judge Cox. Dismissing class action for pleading deficiency. Judge Cox threw out a proposed class action accusing Marathon Oil Corp. of exposing Detroit residents to toxic chemicals. Residents had alleged the company’s nearby refinery caused “ongoing” contamination, resulting in personal injuries and property damage. But the residents’ claims were subject to a three-year statute of limitations, and their failure to allege a specific date their injuries began proved fatal. The court declined to speculate about when the limitations period began to run. In similar cases, plaintiffs are often permitted to assert general allegations without identifying a precise date of first injury—but Judge Cox has raised that bar, at least for claims in Michigan. The decision serves as a reminder of the specificity that may be required in pleading environmental damage claims.
CLASS-IFIED INFORMATION “We have a deep and enduring commitment to diversity and inclusion.” Fortune Names Alston & Bird a Top Workplace for Diversity.
Judge Cooper dismissed a putative class action stemming from a data breach for approximately 1.1 million policyholders. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “a substantial risk that stolen data has been or will be misused in a harmful manner.” The information stolen included policyholders’ names, birth dates, email addresses, and subscriber identification numbers. The plaintiffs argued that the data breach exposed them to an increased risk of identity theft, but Judge Cooper concluded that the plaintiffs never demonstrated “how the CareFirst hackers could steal their identities without access to their social security or credit card numbers,” which were not stolen. Two of the plaintiffs also alleged that they had already suffered an injury from the data breach because they had not received their expected tax refunds due to fraud made possible by the breach. Judge Cooper rejected that claim and held that any alleged tax return fraud was not “fairly traceable to the data breach.” Judge Cooper also dismissed claims alleging economic harm through overpayment and credit-monitoring services, loss of intrinsic value of the plaintiffs’ personal information, and violation of the plaintiffs’ statutory rights under consumer protection laws.
 GameStop Scores Big Win for Privacy Policies, but Standing Questions Loom Carlsen v. GameStop Inc., No. 15-2453 (8th Cir.) (Aug. 16, 2016). Affirming dismissal.
A Northern District of California judge denied class certification to a class of chiropractic clinics that alleged that McKesson had sent them unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court denied class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because each plaintiff sought individual monetary relief they would be entitled to under the TCPA. The court denied certification under Rule 23(b)(3) after discovery showed predominant individual issues regarding the clinics’ express permission to receive faxes.
 Class Certification Decision Offers Silver Lining for Roof Tile Manufacturer Wilson v. Metals USA Inc., No. 12-cv-00568 (E.D. Cal.) (July 1, 2016). Judge Mueller. Granting motion for class certification. A California federal judge certified a class of property owners alleging that their roof tiles faded after exposure to sunlight despite a 25year ultraviolet protection warranty. But the judge also upheld the company’s warranty requirement that owners notify the manufacturer within 30 days of discovering a defect and file a lawsuit within one year of corrective action or denial of a claim. Under California law, manufacturers are free to offer an express, limited warranty with notice requirements that are more stringent than the state’s default rules. The warranty ruling complicates the case for potential class members (like the named plaintiffs) who did not comply with the warranty’s conditions.
 Class Certification Denied in A/C Defect Case Kotsur v. Goodman Global Inc., No. 14-cv-01147 (E.D. Pa.) (Aug. 22, 2016). Judge Beetlestone. Denying motion for class certification. A Pennsylvania federal judge found that the lead plaintiff in a proposed product defect class action could not adequately represent class members because his claims were “susceptible to unique defenses” from the manufacturer. The plaintiff alleged that the evaporator coils in Goodman’s air conditioning units are defective, but his own HVAC servicer made different diagnoses of the problem, and the coil in his unit was discarded rather than returned under warranty. Although the class members’ claims depended on a common contention, the judge denied the motion for class certification because key factual questions, including whether an individual’s unit has the alleged defect, must be decided individually.
Torres v. S.G.E. Management, No. 14-20128 (5th Cir.) (Sept. 30, 2106). Affirming class certification. A district court certified a class of participants in a multilevel energy marketing program who alleged that the program was actually a fraudulent pyramid scheme that violated RICO. The Fifth Circuit affirmed and rejected the program operator’s attempt to leverage individual reasons that putative class members may have had for joining the scheme. The Fifth Circuit held that those individual issues do not predominate over common issues because fraudulent pyramid schemes are structured to defraud their victims.
 That’s the Spirit: Tenth Circuit Finds Spirit Aero Was Optimistic, Not Malevolent Anderson v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc., No. 15-3142 (10th Cir.) (July 5, 2016). Affirming dismissal. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims brought by a group of Spirit investors alleging that the company downplayed the impact of cost overruns resulting from widespread production problems in aircraft programs. The 2013 lawsuit arose from a nearly $600 million forward-loss charge in late 2012 on manufacturing contracts for multiple airline companies. The court agreed that the massive losses were significant, but found that there was not sufficient evidence that Spirit’s executives were lying when they indicated that the programs would meet deadlines and budgets, explaining that the “plaintiffs supply little reason to suspect malevolence over benign optimism.” In August 2016, the Tenth Circuit declined to reconsider its ruling.
 Money Shop Comes Up Empty West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. DFC Global Corp., No. 13-cv-06731 (E.D. Pa.) (Aug. 4, 2016). Judge Schiller. Granting class certification. A Pennsylvania district court certified a class of investors claiming that DFC Global Corporation violated Rule 10b-5 by falsely portraying itself as a conservative manager of risk. The securities class comprises investors who bought shares of DFC Global between January 2011 and February 3, 2014, the day DFC Global’s president and chief operating officer resigned and a day before the price of DFC Global’s stock fell from $7.09 to $6.76.
Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-cv-00729 (N.D. Cal.) (Sept. 29, 2016). Judge Haywood. Approving $12 million settlement.
In re Carrier IQ Inc., No. 12-md-02330 (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 25, 2016). Judge Chen. Granting final approval of $9 million settlement.
StarKist customers alleged the company underfilled its tuna cans, amounting to false advertising, unfair competition, and breach of express warranty. The district court approved the $12 million settlement agreement resolving all claims. The court questioned whether the settlement’s second amended release required that additional notice be given to all class members. But the court ultimately concluded that no additional notice was needed because the amended release narrowed the scope of claims discharged by the settlement, rather than broadened them.
Judge Chen approved software developer Carrier IQ’s $9 million fund to settle a privacy lawsuit related to its logging cellular messaging content. The fund was set to cover more than 79 million affected devices from 30 million unique users. But a class response rate of only 0.14% translated to relatively large payouts for the participating class members. Judge Chen deferred to the settlement administrator’s judgment that the seemingly low response rate was consistent with other settlement administrations that had similar class characteristics.
 Uber Not Safe to Proceed with Its Safe Rides Fee Settlement Philliben v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 14-cv-05615 (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 30, 2016). Judge Tigar. Denying preliminary approval of settlement. Judge Tigar rejected Uber’s $28.5 million preliminary settlement proposal as unreasonable given Uber’s total revenues stemming from the Safe Rides Fee program. Uber cannot claim that its insurance expenses support its Safe Rides Fee to customers since the primary purpose behind Uber’s insurance policies is to protect Uber, not its customers. The Safe Rides Fee generated revenues far exceeding the $28.5 million settlement proposal, and Judge Tigar held that class members should be able to recover a greater portion of that gross revenue.
 Settlement Coupons Cannot Replace Settlement Payouts Hoffman v. Dutch, No. 14-cv-02418 (S.D. Cal.) (Aug. 16, 2016). Judge Curiel. Denying second motion for preliminary approval of settlement. Customers of Current/Elliott brand jeans brought suit alleging Dutch inaccurately labeled the jeans as “Made in the USA.” Initially, Dutch tried to settle claims by offering each class member a $20 e-gift certificate. The district court rejected that preliminary settlement since no item on the Current/Elliott website retailed for less than $20 and class members would be required to pay out of pocket to redeem the e-gift certificate. Dutch then returned with a second offer of a $20 e-gift certification and a denim tote bag ($128 value). Judge Curiel rejected that offer because the addition of a tote bag to the settlement package did not resolve the first issue.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.