18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 575 actionable wrong or otherwise did not meet pleading standards. The Court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration of the denial of a default judgment. Lesnik, et al. v. Eisenmann , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179176 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021). Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant, a Slovenian business entity with its principal place of business in Slovenia, alleging minimum wage and overtime violations pursuant to the FLSA. Plaintiff was a resident of Croatia and was allegedly hired by Defendant and brought to the United States to work at various locations between 2013 and 2015, including at the Tesla manufacturing plant in Fremont, California. Plaintiff alleged that the Eisenmann Corp., a former Defendant in the case, formed relations with a number of manufacturing entities, such as Tesla, to perform construction work related to Eisenmann’s equipment. Plaintiff further alleged that to fulfill these agreements, Eisenmann hired Defendant as a sub-contractor to provide the laborers necessary to complete the equipment installation. Plaintiff alleged that once in the United States, Defendant paid him far below minimum wage and forced him to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime. After Defendant failed to appear and participate in the litigation, Plaintiff moved to enter a default judgment against Defendant. The Court determined that the exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Defendant was proper. In addition, the Court considered whether entry of default judgment against Defendant was warranted in this case. The Court found that Plaintiff had established that he would be prejudiced if the Court did not enter default because Defendant had not participated in the litigation and Plaintiff would be without recourse to recover for the damages caused by Defendant if the Court did not enter default judgment. The Court also considered the merits and sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims as pleaded in his complaint. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint had inconsistencies and defects with respect to his minimum wage and overtime claims, which precluded entry of default judgment. For example, Plaintiff’s complaint asserted that the FLSA set federal minimum wage at $7.50 when it was in fact $7.25. Accordingly, each of Plaintiff’s calculations regarding the amount of wages owed was incorrect. Second, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding what he was paid were unclear and sometimes contradictory. Likewise, as to Plaintiff’s overtime claim, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s calculation of the hours appeared to include time that Plaintiff spent in transit between the housing provided for Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s job site and failed to include required allegations that demonstrated that any uncompensated time involved activities that were integral and indispensable to Plaintiff’s principal activities as an employee. In sum, in light of these deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment without prejudice. Smith, et al. v. DRS Financial Corp. , Case No. 20-CV-900 (D.N.J. May 25, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendants, a debt collector company and its CEO, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Defendants failed to respond to the lawsuit and the Court subsequently entered a default judgment against Defendants. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to hold the CEO, David Sopourn, in contempt of Court. The Court granted the motion. The Court noted that Defendants had failed to defend themselves in the case, failed pay the judgment entered against them, failed to comply with the Court’s order to answer a subpoena, failed to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for contempt, failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause, failed to attend the hearing on the Court’s order to show cause, and failed to respond to the Court’s order and final notice in a timely manner. Id . at 1-2. The Court thus ordered that Sopourn should be held in contempt for repeated failure to respond to the Court’s orders; that the U.S. Marshal issue a civil warrant against Sopourn; that the U.S. Marshal attempt to contact Sopourn by phone regarding the warrant, and if not able to reach via phone, the Marshal should execute the warrant to Sopourn’s home address. (xxxiv) Discovery Issues In Class Actions Addi, et al. v. Corvias Management-Army LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180412 (D. Md. Sept. 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of military members and their families, filed a class action alleging that Defendants provided housing that was substandard and contained mold, which led to health problems. The parties submitted to the Court various discovery disputes over documents withheld on either side based on privilege. Defendants Corvias and Meade Communities contracted to manage and maintain housing for military families at Fort Meade in Maryland. Corvias and Meade hired Holland & Knight LLP as defense counsel, which hired several companies, including TRC, ServPro, Black & Veatch and Aegis Project Controls as consulting experts. Thereafter, Corvias and Meade hired the same companies to schedule and perform mold inspections and remediation, beginning in March 2019, while providing Holland & Knight with their consulting services. Defendants contended that any documents provided to its counsel by the consultants should be designated as