18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

440 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition More than any other jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit has confronted – and ruled on – more issues under the CAFA than any other federal circuit. This is primarily the result of the high volume of class action litigation in California state courts, and the corresponding removal of those lawsuits to federal courts in California. In this respect, the Ninth Circuit’s CAFA jurisprudence has had a significant impact on other circuits, as issues already decided in the Ninth Circuit are confronted by courts in other areas of the country. In 2021, federal courts decided many CAFA-related cases. This Chapter does not canvas them all, but instead focuses on major appellate cases and a number of noteworthy district court rulings – in both employment and non-employment cases – that interpreted the CAFA. (i) First Circuit Freedman , et al. v. O ’ Brien, et al., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2112 (D. Mass. Jan. 6, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of purchasers of cars from Defendants’ dealerships, filed a class action alleging that Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices. Defendants removed the action on the basis of jurisdiction under the CAFA. Plaintiffs thereafter moved to remand. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Id. at *6. Plaintiffs argued that remand was required under the “home state” exception to the CAFA because the data produced by Defendants showed that 85% of their customers provided the dealership with a Massachusetts residence, well above the two-thirds threshold. Id. at *2-3. The Court noted that Defendants controlled what customer information it provided to Plaintiffs to prove class citizenship. Further, Defendants declined to provide the names of customers, which would have enabled Plaintiffs to establish factors to prove the home state exception. The Court explained that there were no facts contradicting the alleged citizenship of persons at the Massachusetts residences. Id. at *4-5. Finally, the Court opined that the case involved the purchase of automobiles, which was the type of property that reflected evidence of domicile. Id at *5. Therefore, because there were more than 3,000 separate Massachusetts customers in Defendants’ records, the Court found that Plaintiffs had sufficient evidence to meet the jurisdictional threshold. Id. Accordingly, the Court held that Plaintiffs met their burden in proving the citizenship composition of the putative class, and it granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand pursuant to the CAFA’s home state exception. Id. at *15-16. (ii) Second Circuit Meehan, et al. v. Vipkid, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164291 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendants, operators of an online education platform, violated § § 50-51 of the New York Civil Rights Law and wage & hour laws by exploiting teachers’ likenesses and failing to pay them minimum wages and overtime. Defendants removed the action. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on the grounds that the Court should exercise its discretion to remand under the CAFA’s “interests of justice” exception. Id. at *13. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Id. at *36. First, the Court noted that Plaintiff did not dispute that the complaint was properly removed within the CAFA’s diversity jurisdiction provisions. The Court noted that Defendants carried their burden to establish the CAFA’s numerosity requirement since there was a reasonable probability that the class size was greater than 100, given Plaintiff’s acknowledgement that the number of putative class members totalled at least 13,000 individuals. Id. at *26-28. Turning to Plaintiff’s argument that remand was warranted under the CAFA’s “interests of justice” exception, the Court explained that Plaintiff claimed that more than one-third of the proposed class members were citizens of New York. The Court rejected this argument. It opined that Plaintiff only established that 600 of the estimated 13,000 putative class members were teachers in New York. The Court further held that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden with respect to citizenship of the primary Defendants, as most maintained their principle places of business or headquarters outside of New York. Id. at *31. Therefore, in light of the fact that Defendants met their burden to prove that jurisdiction pursuant to the CAFA existed, and since Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden to demonstrate an exception to the exercise of that jurisdiction, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Id. at *32-33. (iii) Third Circuit Mejias, et al. v. Goya Foods Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99509 (D.N.J. May 26, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendants violated the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by classifying them as independent contractors. Defendants removed the action on the basis of jurisdiction under the CAFA. Plaintiffs thereafter moved to remand on the basis that