18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

444 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Defendant appealed the District Court’s remand of the § 15(a) claims to the Seventh Circuit while Pathfinder seeks re-removal through § 1446(b)(3). Further, Defendants in Fox and Defendants here were completely different entities. The Court determined that it was clear that Fox is not an "order or other paper" for purposes of re-removal. The Court reasoned that Fox could not be used by Pathfinder for re-removal, as Fox did not "expressly authorize that same Defendant to remove an action against it in another case involving similar facts and legal issues." Id . at *12. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (viii) Eighth Circuit Kitchin, et al. v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, 3 F.4th 1089 (8th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of property owners, filed a state court class action asserting seven state law tort claims and seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief after finding out that their properties were contaminated with radioactive material from Defendants’ landfill. Defendant removed the action on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction under the Price-Anderson Act ("PAA") and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), and as diversity jurisdiction existed under the CAFA, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, arguing that their complaint did not trigger federal-question jurisdiction under either the PAA or the CERCLA and that the District Court had to "decline to exercise [CAFA] jurisdiction" because the CAFA’s local- controversy exception applied. Id . at 1092. The District Court granted the motion to remand. It found that federal-question jurisdiction did not exist and that the local controversy exception applied. On Defendants’ appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. The District Court reasoned that since Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that Defendants "all engaged in the same conduct" that caused Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries, then those allegations demonstrated that the conduct of the only Missouri-based Defendant, Rock Road Industries, formed a significant basis for Plaintiffs’ claims Id . at 1094. The Eighth Circuit ruled that Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to show that the conduct of Rock Road Industries "forms a significant basis for the claims asserted" in the complaint to trigger the local controversy exception. Id . The Eighth Circuit determined that Plaintiffs simply alleged that Defendants engaged in conduct causing Plaintiffs’ injuries without identifying specific acts of each Defendant or otherwise describing in any meaningful way Rock Road Industries’ particular, injury-causing conduct. Id . at 1095. The Eighth Circuit explained that these collective allegations against Defendants were insufficient to show that Rock Road Industries’ conduct met the significant- basis requirement. The Eighth Circuit opined that the few allegations in the complaint that referred specifically to Rock Road Industries also failed to satisfy the requirement. The Eighth Circuit thus concluded that the local- controversy exception of the CAFA did not apply, and that the District Court erred in granted the motion to remand. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. (ix) Ninth Circuit Brumbach, et al. v. Hyatt Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46019 (S.D. Cal. March 11, 2021). Plaintiff, an hourly non-exempt hotel employee, filed a state court class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all wages due because of illegal time rounding, failed to provide legally requisite meal and rest periods, failed to timely provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to timely pay wages due to terminated employees in violation of the California Labor Code. Defendant removed the action pursuant to the CAFA. It asserted that were at least 100 members of the class, that the parties were minimally diverse, and that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on the basis that Defendant failed to establish that the class had over 100 members and that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million. The Court denied the motion. Plaintiff’s proposed class included all California-based citizens employed by Defendants as hourly-paid, non- exempt employees during the appropriate time period at Defendants’ Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego. Id . at *11. Defendant submitted a declaration from human resources personnel that stated that during the relevant time period there were approximately 1,372 total non-exempt hourly employees at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego hotel. Id . at *11-12. The Court concluded that Defendant plausibly alleged that the class consisted of over 100 individuals. As to the amount-in-controversy, the Court found Defendants’ assumptions to be reasonable and based on the allegations in the complaint. As to the rounding claim, Defendant assumed that 1,372 employees would be entitled to 10 minutes of unpaid time for each of the 181,158 workweeks, for a total of $555,562.31 given the average hourly rate. Id . at *18. For Plaintiff’s 653 meal and rest period class members, 335 worked full-time and the Court opined that it was reasonable to assume that the full-time employees incurred one meal and one rest period violation per workweek, for a total of $1,798,696.24. Id . at *26. Finally,