18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

398 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition were required to design and construct the transmission lines with a material other than copper. Subsequently, Defendants filed a renewed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that given new facts and evidence, they now had complete defenses to both Plaintiffs’ strict products liability and negligence causes of action. The trial court granted the motion on the basis that even if Plaintiffs could establish a theory of liability against Defendants, the strict products liability and negligence claims were barred under § 337.15’s 10-year statute of repose, which commenced on May 30, 2003, and ran prior to the October 2015 filing date Plaintiffs’ original complaint. Id. at *12. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal ruled that under the statute of repose, statutes of limitations generally may not be tolled even in cases of extraordinary circumstances beyond Plaintiff’s control. The Court of Appeal also held that Plaintiffs failed to establish that Defendants’ conduct constituted willful misconduct in order exempt Defendants from operation of § 337.15. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Heinz, et al. v. California Public Employees ’ Retirement System, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2543 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. April 19, 2021). Plaintiff, a former state employee, brought a putative class action on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated individuals enrolled in the preferred provider organization (“PPO”) health insurance offered or administered by Defendants California Public Employees’ Retirement System and its Board of Administration (collectively “CalPERS”) and BlueCross of California d.b.a. Anthem Blue Cross (“Anthem”). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants falsely represented the methodology for calculating reimbursements for costs incurred when seeing a non-preferred, i.e. , out-of-network, healthcare provider for non-emergency services and failed to properly reimburse their members for those costs. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, misrepresentation, unfair business practices and violation of statutory duties. Plaintiff also petitioned for a writ of administrative mandamus under § 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to overturn CalPERS’s rejection of his requests for additional reimbursement for out-of-network services provided to him in 2008 and 2009. The trial court denied the writ petition and thereafter sustained CalPERS and Anthem’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment on Defendants’ behalf. The trial court ruled that the adverse administrative decision and order denying Plaintiff’s writ petition precluded his contract and tort causes of action and, to the extent any cause of action alleged claims separate from those presented in the administrative proceeding, they were time-barred. On Plaintiff’s appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying the petition for writ of administrative mandamus, but reversed in part the judgment dismissing the action. As to the request for a writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that Plaintiff had not established grounds for issuance of a writ of mandate because he failed to cite any evidence in the administrative record that Defendants had acted in bad faith in setting an Allowable Amount for his doctor as an out-of-network provider that was lower than his in-network contract rate had been. To the contrary, the Court of Appeal concluded that the record established that Defendants had acted consistent with their clearly stated of goal of providing health insurance coverage for healthcare services while controlling the overall costs of the program. However, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to all causes of action on the basis that they were barred by claim preclusion. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded as to the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and breach of statutory duties. Further, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of the demurrer as to all other causes of action. Jacks, et al. v. City Of Santa Barbara, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5368 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 19, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of hotels in Santa Barbara, California, brought a class action challenging the City of Santa Barbara’s agreement with an electric company to impose a 2% surcharge that was split between higher electricity rates and separately stated charges on customers’ bills. Plaintiffs alleged that the 1% surcharge was not compensation for the privilege of using City property but rather a tax imposed without voter approval in violation of Proposition 218. In an earlier appeal, the California Court of Appeal concluded that the 1% surcharge was a tax requiring voter approval. The California Supreme Court reversed the decision in part and determined that charges that constitute compensation for the use of government property are not subject to Proposition 218’s voter approval requirements, but clarified that to constitute compensation, the amount of the charge must bear a reasonable relationship to the value of the property interest. Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara, (“ Jacks ”) 3 Cal.5th 248, 262 (2017). Thus ,if the charge exceeds any reasonable value of the interest, it is a tax requiring voter approval. The Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeal to remand the matter to the trial court for