18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 395 allegedly pursuing fraudulent workers’ compensation claims, it remanded to the trial court with directions to grant in their entirety Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions. County Of Los Angeles, et al. v. Superior Court, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 500 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. June 15, 2021). The State of California sued Defendants, a group various pharmaceutical companies, relative to the manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of prescription opioids. A discovery dispute arose after Defendants served subpoenas on two non-party counties, Petitioners County of Los Angeles and County of Alameda, seeking records of patients in various county programs, including individual prescription data and individual patient records related to substance abuse treatment. The trial court entered an order compelling the production of the documents. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate to the California Court of Appeal seeking vacatur of the trial court’s order compelling production of the documents. The Petitioners claimed that the discovery order implicated the state constitutional privacy rights of the individuals whose records the trial court ordered produced. The Court of Appeal held that the Petitioners carried their threshold burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s discovery order threatened a serious invasion of privacy. The Court of Appeal found that the risks associated with an order to provide identified data to a third-party vendor with vague directions to de-identify such data, without any specification as to how such de-identification must occur, presented a clear potential threat to patient privacy. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal held that Defendants did not identify interests in favor of disclosure that outweighed the serious invasion of privacy that such disclosure would entail. Moreover, the Court of Appeal concluded that Defendants failed to provide any cogent legal argument as to how the requested discovery would be admissible or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the Petitioners to produce the documents and to enter a new order denying the motions to compel. Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., et al. v. Superior Court, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 137 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Feb. 22, 2021). Plaintiff, an employee, filed a class action alleging violations of the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Defendant moved for a transfer of venue, which the trial court denied. The trial court concluded that PAGA claims may be properly tried in a county where Defendant committed alleged violations of the California Labor Code (“CLC”) if the employees were employed there or it was where Defendant had its principal place of business. Defendant filed a writ of mandate requesting the California Court of Appeal to grant its motion to transfer venue. The Court of Appeal determined that the trial court did not err and therefore it denied the petition. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that she formerly worked for Defendant in Solano County and that Defendant systematically violated certain provisions of the CLC. Plaintiff alleged that venue was proper in Alameda County because Defendant operated a chain of treatment centers and employed aggrieved employees across California, including in Alameda County. Id . at *4. Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue to Sacramento County, where its principal place of business was located, arguing that because Plaintiff worked in Solano County, venue was not proper in Alameda County. The trial court concluded that because Defendant operated individual locations in the county, and it was where some of the alleged violations occurred, venue was proper. The Court of Appeal determined that there would be no reason why the Legislature would restrict the proper venue to the location of an individual employee when that employee was suing on behalf of all aggrieved employees. Further, the Court of Appeal opined that because Defendant had two facilities in Alameda County, where Plaintiff alleged some CLC violations occurred, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. Drezner, et al. v. Champlain Towers South Condominium Association Inc., Case No. 2021-01508-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. July 16, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s condominium association failed to secure and safeguard the lives and property of Plaintiffs and proposed class members when the 12- story and approximately 135-unit condominium building at Champlain Towers South suffered a catastrophic collapse. The Court issued an order for the action to proceed in dual tracks on the grounds that it would lead to a more manageable and streamlined litigation. The Court determined that there should be a personal injury and wrongful death track, including all actions brought on behalf of the named Plaintiffs claiming personal injuries or wrongful death as a result of the collapse. The Court also ordered establishment of an economic loss and property damage track, including all actions where only economic damages without personal injuries were claimed. The Court likewise ordered consolidated discovery, pretrial consolidation, and one master file and