18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 445 Plaintiff’s waiting time allegations asserted that "Defendants had a consistent and uniform policy, practice and procedure of failing to pay the earned wages of Defendants’ former employees" and failed to pay the members of the class “their entire wages due . . . for up to 30 days." Id . at *30. The Court concluded that Defendants’ assumption that every terminated employee was entitled to the maximum 30-day waiting time penalties was reasonable and therefore the amount-in-controversy on the waiting time penalties claim was $3,020,961.60. Accordingly, the Court held that based on Defendant’s declarations, reasonable assumptions, and the allegations in the complaint, the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million for purposes of jurisdiction under the CAFA. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Bruun, et al. v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27814 (D. Nev. Feb. 12, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of restaurant customers, filed a state court class action alleging that Defendant’s Stella Artois beer glasses only held 14 ounces rather than 16 ounces of beer as advertised. Defendants removed the action on the grounds that because Defendant "sold over $16,000,000 worth of draft Stella Artois beer" since 2016, the claims exceeded the CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement. Id. at *2. Plaintiff moved to remand the action on the basis that since Defendant sold the Stella product in multiple sizes and the class action challenged only the 16-ounce size, Defendant failed to establish that the claims met the required amount-in-controversy jurisdictional threshold. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court found that Plaintiffs successfully asserted that the proposed class members’ damages were just a sub-set of the total-sales figures because the actual damages alleged were from the missing two ounces of beer, which would make up just 12.5% of the purchase price, or approximately $2,000,000.14. The Court noted that the $2 million number assumed that all $16 million in Stella sales was for 16-ounce glasses, despite the offerings of multiple sizes. The Court opined that the sales of the 16 ounce beers made up just $7.1 million of the Stella sales "for a total of $887,500" in shortage. Id . at *4. The Court therefore determined that, even including all of Defendant’s franchised and corporate locations and adding attorneys’ fees and cost, it was unreasonable to conclude that the damages would exceed the jurisdictional threshold required by the CAFA. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Escobar, et al. v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45231 (E.D. Cal. March 10, 2021). Plaintiff, a materials handler, filed a state court class action alleging that Defendant failed to provide proper wage payment statements in violation of the California Labor Code. Defendant removed the action pursuant to the CAFA. Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint pursuing only claims as a PAGA action, and dropped the class action claims. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand, and the Court granted the motion. Plaintiff alleged that when Defendant paid employees premium wages, its wage statements failed to identify the correct rates of pay and/or hours worked. Plaintiff argued that remand was proper because the Court lacked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and after the dismissal of his class claims the amount-in- controversy did not exceed $75,000. The Court explained that under the PAGA, civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees are distributed as "75% to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and 25% to the aggrieved employees." Id . at *4. Plaintiff received nine wage statements reflecting "premium" wages during his employment tenure, with a maximum amount of penalties of $562.50, assuming a PAGA penalty of $250 per wage statement for "initial violations" and considering the 75% share of penalties that would go to the LWDA. Id . at *5. The Court held that because Plaintiff’s claims fell short of satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement, there was no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant requested that the Court retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. The Court held that comity weighed in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim because the state court was competent to hear such claims and may have a better understanding of the relevant state law. Id . at *8. The Court also found that it would not serve judicial economy to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the action was just beginning. The Court also concluded that the convenience and fairness factors did not weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction, as both forums were equally convenient for both parties. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Gershfield, et al. v. Teamviewer US, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75996 (C.D. Cal. April 20, 2021). Plaintiff, a customer, filed a state court class action alleging that Defendant’s renewal of his remote-access software subscription without his authorization violated the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumer Privacy Act ("CPA"). Defendant removed the action pursuant to the CAFA. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the Court denied. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant renewed his subscription without his authorization by