18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

448 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition FLSA against the Vuzem Defendants; (ii) failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA against the Vuzem Defendants; (iii) failure to pay minimum wage under California law against all Defendants; (iv) failure to pay overtime wages under California law against all Defendants; (v) failure to provide adequate rest periods under California law against all Defendants; (vi) failure to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements under California law against the Vuzem Defendants; (vii) failure to pay waiting time penalties under California law against all Defendants; (viii) failure to adhere to California labor laws for a class of 177 employees against the Vuzem Defendants; (iv) violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act against Defendant ISM Vuzem; and (x) violation of § 3706 against Defendant ISM Vuzem. Id . at *7-8. Defendant removed the action, and Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to remand, which the Court denied in part and granted in part. Defendants asserted that the Court had jurisdiction over all 10 claims because it had original federal question jurisdiction over three of Plaintiffs’ claims, and should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Id . at *8. Defendants also argued that the Court had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the CAFA. The Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the first nine of Plaintiffs’ 10 claims because: (i) it had original federal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ first, second, and ninth claims because these claims arose under federal law; (ii) it had supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth claims because these claims were part of the same "case or controversy" as the three federal law claims; and (iii) § 1367(c)’s exceptions to supplemental jurisdiction did not apply. Id . at *8-9. The Court concluded that because six of Plaintiffs’ state law claims shared a common nucleus of operative fact with Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the state claims and the federal claims were part of the same case or controversy. Id. at *14. Therefore, because the state law claims did not predominate the federal law claims, the Court determined that it should supplement jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. The Court therefore denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand as to the first nine causes of action. As to Plaintiffs’ § 3706 claim, the Court ruled it created a separate statutory claim arising under California’s workers’ compensation laws. The Court thus granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the Plaintiffs’ § 3706 cause of action. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Penrod, et al. v. K&N Engineering, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27685 (8th Cir. Sept. 15, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a state court class action alleging that Defendant sold them defective oil filters. Defendant removed the action to the District Court. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which the District Court granted on the grounds that the amount-in-controversy did not exceed $5 million under the CAFA. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, and strict liability. Id . at *3. The District Court found that according to Plaintiffs’ estimation that 3/100ths of 1% of the oil filters at issue failed, with the asserted 750 defective oil filters, the damages must exceed $6,666.66 per oil filter failure to meet the jurisdictional threshold. The District Court held that Plaintiffs’ theory that every proposed class member sustained damages failed because those whose oil filters never failed did not sustain injury or damages and thereby could not be part of the damages asserted. The District Court thus reasoned that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an amount-in- controversy in excess of $5 million. On Appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed on the basis that a vast majority of the class lacked standing because they did not suffer an injury-in-fact, inasmuch as they were not injured by the alleged defect. The Eighth Circuit held that excluding the no-injury proposed class members, and even accepting as plausible Plaintiffs’ estimation that 3/100ths of 1% of the oil filters at issue were defective and failed, the District Court correctly determined that Plaintiffs failed to meet the $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the order that remanded the action to the state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Saunders, et al. v. DoorDash, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27555 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021). Plaintiff, a delivery driver, filed a state court class action alleging that Defendant misclassified drivers as independent contractors and thereby violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff brought claims for: (i) failure to pay overtime; (ii) failure to pay minimum wages; (iii) failure to pay wages upon termination; (iv) failure to provide accurate, itemized paystubs; (v) failure to reimburse business expenses; (vi) breach of contract; (vii) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (viii) violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Id . at *3-4. Defendant removed the action to the District Court, asserting that federal jurisdiction was present under the CAFA. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on the basis that Defendant: (i) failed to establish the requisite amount-in-controversy for jurisdiction under the CAFA; (ii) that the matter qualified for the home state exception to the CAFA’s jurisdiction; and (iii) that the case should be remanded under the CAFA’s discretionary