18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

408 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition RICO claim, did not describe the alleged conduct as mail fraud or wire fraud. However, the Court determined that both complaints relied upon the same alleged fraudulent acts relative to the dissemination of various fraudulent statements over the internet. Further, the Court surmised that whether or not the alleged fraudulent acts were described as mail or wire fraud in the complaint, the claims in the complaint and the claims in the SAC referred to the same instrumentality – misleading statements and omissions published over the internet. Additionally, Court ruled that Plaintiff’s RICO claims were adequately pled. As to the UCL, claim, Defendant asserted that because the UCL claim was an unlawful prong claim predicated on a civil RICO violation, the UCL claim was not adequately pled unless a civil RICO claim was adequately pled. However, because the Court found that the predicate civil RICO claim was adequately pled, it rejected this argument as well. Finally, Defendants demurred to Plaintiff’s class allegations on the ground that there was no reasonable possibility that a class would be certified. However, the Court ruled that it was unable to conclude as a matter of law that, assuming the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint, there was no reasonable possibility that the requirements for class certification would be satisfied. Accordingly, the Court overruled the demurrer to the class allegations as well. Thurston, et al. v. Ricardo Beverly Hills, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 110 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Jan. 8, 2021). Plaintiff, a blind consumer, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s website discriminated against the blind and visually handicapped in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction since it was located in Washington. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding, but allowed for limited discovery to determine whether Defendant had sufficient sales in California to establish jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal explained that there was no evidence of personal jurisdiction over Defendant, because there was no evidence that Defendant made substantial sales through its website to Californians. Defendant contended that in 2018, approximately 0.002% of its sales were made through its website to buyers in San Bernardino County. The Court of Appeal thus found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving that Defendant had the necessary minimum contacts with California. Id . at *15. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that Plaintiff should be granted limited discovery on the amount of sales completed by Defendant’s website to consumers in California. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that Plaintiff showed good cause for limited jurisdictional discovery, and the trial court abused its discretion in ruling otherwise. The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the trial court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to quash. UFCW & Employee Benefits Trust, et al. v. Sutter Health , Case No. CGC-14-538451 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated California law by engaging in certain anti-competitive practices. The parties entered into a class-wide settlement agreement providing monetary and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval. Thereafter, the Court’s ruling on the motion was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant subsequently filed a motion requesting the Court to delay resolution of preliminary approval so that Defendant could have the benefit of more information about how its future operations would unfold under the pandemic before it decided whether or not to oppose approval of the settlement. The Court denied Defendant’s request. Plaintiffs thereafter submitted a renewed motion with supplemental submissions in support of the preliminary settlement motion. The Court granted the renewed motion for preliminary settlement approval. Following notice to class members, the Court entered an order granting final settlement approval and awarded Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees and costs. Under the terms of the settlement, Defendant agreed to pay $575 million and also change several practices including limiting patient charges for out-of-network services, increasing transparency in billing, pricing, and cost information, increasing the availability of lower cost options, and allowing options for increased hospital accessibility. The Court also found that an award of $11,500,000 in attorneys’ fees to the California Attorney General and $152,375,000 for Plaintiffs’ counsel was appropriate and granted the award. The Court further awarded litigation expenses of $8,161,954.74 to the Attorney General and $13,091,381.98 to Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Court also approved a service award to the UEBT of $250,000. Velis, et al. v. AT & T Services, Inc., 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4106 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. June 24, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated § 226(a)(9) of the California Labor Code (“CLC”) by failing to identify all applicable hourly rates for overtime wages on its wage statements. Specifically, Plaintiff sought to represent a class of past and present employees who were paid overtime wages and also sought