18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

396 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition docket. The Court also indicated to Plaintiffs’ counsel that it would be proceeding on a pro bono basis, with no legal entitlement to receive attorneys’ fees, but that the Court would consider awarding counsel their lodestar award at the conclusion of the case based on their success. The Court thereafter appointed Plaintiffs’ counsel, co-lead counsel, and a Plaintiffs’ steering committee to the actions. Ezeokoli, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. , 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 451 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Jan. 26, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of taxi drivers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant disseminated false and misleading advertising statements in violation of the Lanham Act. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant issued misleading statements concerning the availability of Uber rides, the safety of its services, its operating status at various airports, and driver gratuities. Plaintiffs further claimed that as a result of Defendant’s allegedly misleading statements, Plaintiffs lost ridership and income. Id. at *1. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to establish the required element of causation, and the trial court granted the motion. Plaintiffs appealed and the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Defendant made a prima facie showing that Plaintiffs did not offer adequate evidence to establish causation. Defendant had offered an expert witness who testified that, given the litany of complex factors involved in the ride-sharing market, it was impossible to isolate the effects of just one factor, i.e. , in this case, Defendant’s advertising statements. According to Defendant’s expert witness, “Plaintiffs’ theory of causation…merely assumed without any factual basis that ‘former taxi riders switched to Uber simply because of the disputed statements.’” Id. at *11-12. Defendant also referenced a survey in which Uber riders cited a number of reasons for choosing Uber over taxis, including safety, comfort, and ease of use. Id. at *12. Conversely, the Court of Appeals noted that Plaintiffs’ expert witness who was supposed to provide survey evidence of consumer deception failed to offer any concrete evidence. In response, Plaintiffs contended that they were not required to show a factual dispute over causation because that element was presumed under the Lanham Act when a competitor makes intentionally false statements. Id. at *19. Plaintiffs’ argument was premised on the theory that, even though Defendant’s statements did not explicitly refer to taxis, it could be implied that Defendant suggested that Ubers were safer than taxis. The Court of Appeals rejected Plaintiffs’ argument. It held that the Lanham Act incorporated a causation requirement. The Court of Appeals also noted that Plaintiffs’ implied theory failed because Defendant participated in a complex market involving several other competing parties in addition to taxis. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in Defendant’s favor. General Atomics, et al. v. Superior Court, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 452 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. May 28, 2021). Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant based on its alleged failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements showing all applicable hourly rates in effect during the requisite pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee as required under § 226 of the California Labor Code (“CLC”). Plaintiff maintained that Defendant failed to identify the correct rate of pay for overtime wages because its wage statements showed 0.5 times the regular rate of pay rather than 1.5. Defendant moved for summary judgement, and challenged Plaintiff’s theory of liability. Specifically, Defendant contended that its wage statements complied with § 226 because they showed the total hours worked, with their standard rate or rates, and the overtime hours worked, with their additional premium rate. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion on the basis that the material facts were undisputed because Defendant admitted that its wage statements showed a 0.5 time overtime premium, rather than a 1.5 time overtime rate. The trial court further determined that Defendant’s wage statements should have shown the non-overtime hours and overtime hours separately, with their applicable hourly rates. By Defendant’s combining non-overtime hours and overtime hours, and listing the overtime hours a second time with the 0.5 time overtime premium, the trial court concluded that the wage statements did not show the 1.5 time overtime rate or allow an employee to easily calculate it. The trial court was unpersuaded by Defendant’s assertion that showing the 1.5 time overtime rate would be impractical or cause confusion when an employee earned multiple standard hourly rates during a single pay period. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary adjudication. On Defendant’s petition, the California Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred by determining that Defendant’s wage statements violated § 226 because the wage statements showed the applicable hourly rates in effect and the corresponding number of hours worked at each rate as required by the statute. In the wage statements provided by Defendant, the applicable hourly rates were: (i) the standard hourly rate determined by contract or other agreement between the employee and the employer; and (ii) the