18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 651 Tillage, et al. v. Comcast Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133061 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant misled consumers about its base cable prices. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the Court denied the motion on the basis that Plaintiffs’ proposed class failed to meet the predominance, commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23. First, the Court explained that Plaintiffs’ arguments for predominance, commonality, and typicality were premised on the allegation that it was unlawful for Defendant to advertise a base price for a cable package that did not include the Broadcast TV Fees and Regional Sports Fees, even if the customer received a disclosure that those fees would be charged in addition to the advertised price. Id . at *1-2. The Court noted that under the California statutes invoked by Plaintiffs, it would need to evaluate the corrective disclosures and take them into account in evaluating whether the challenged advertising or statement was deceptive. Id . at *2. The Court also observed that the record demonstrated that Defendant advertised a base price and then explained specifically that the Broadcast TV Fees and Regional Sports Fees would be charged on top additionally. The Court thus concluded that Defendant did not violate the statutes invoked by Plaintiffs because its disclosure cured the otherwise potentially deceptive nature of the advertisement. Second, the Court held that the inquiry as to whether a consumer was misled would require highly individualized inquiries. Given how broadly Plaintiffs defined their proposed class, the Court concluded that there was far too much variation among putative class members in terms of what representations were made and whether those representations were deceptive to meet the predominance requirement. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Van Tassel, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automotive Insurance Co. , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 10618 (9th Cir. April 14, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of insured individuals, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to compensate class members for the proper amounts after being in automotive accidents in violation of state consumer protection laws. After the District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs prevailed on their individual breach-of-contract claims against Defendant following a trial. Id . at *2. After the District Court entered final judgment, Plaintiffs appealed the orders denying class certification and motions for reconsideration. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s rulings. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of insureds in Washington who purportedly suffered diminished value damages covered under their underinsured motorist policies. Id . The District Court had ruled that the putative class not meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) or the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b). The District Court had concluded that due to the individualized nature of each separate accident, different questions on liability, and how each instance of diminished value damages were calculated, individual issues would predominate. The Ninth Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that individual issues would predominance over issues common to the class. The Ninth Circuit also ruled that the District Court did not err in denying reconsideration of the class certification issue, as Plaintiffs essentially argued the same claims as in the initial motions that the District Court denied. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Woolley, et al. v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 30142 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former borrowers of "Property Assessed Clean Energy" ("PACE") loans, which were created as tax liens on a borrower’s property, filed a class action based on statutory and common law fraud claims against Defendants to rectify alleged misrepresentations about their ability to transfer loan balances without paying penalties and fees. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the District Court denied on the basis that individualized questions regarding reliance. The District Court thus held that Plaintiffs failed to meet the commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements of Rule 23. Id . at *3. Plaintiffs argued that class-wide reliance was common, typical, and predominant through their contracts with Defendant, which contained "both misrepresented and omitted material information concerning transferability." Id . The District Court reasoned that even assuming the loan contract was a common point of guaranteed contact between putative class members and Ygrene, it would still be required to determine whether disclosure of the omissions would have impacted each class members’ decision about entering into the contract. The District Court found that exposure to the contract did not present a class-wide showing of actual reliance on the alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the contract about the transferability of the PACE loans without the additional payment of fees or penalties. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the District Court did not err in concluding that certification was not appropriate based only on a contractual misrepresentation or omission about surprise fees because the individual issue of each class member’s reliance on that purported