Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Pauline Mary Huff filed a class action and a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action against her former employer, Interior Specialists, Inc., alleging various wage-and-hour violations. Huff opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was signed by someone else named "William" in DocuSign. The trial court found sufficient evidence that Huff consented to the agreement and granted the motion to compel arbitration.The trial court consolidated the class and PAGA actions. Interior Specialists then moved to compel Huff’s PAGA claims to arbitration. The trial court reiterated its earlier finding that Huff validly signed the agreement and, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, ordered Huff’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration and dismissed her nonindividual PAGA claims without prejudice for lack of standing.Huff appealed the October 21, 2022 order, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her nonindividual PAGA claims and in finding that she signed the arbitration agreement. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, concluded that Huff timely appealed the October 21 order. On the merits, the court reversed the dismissal of Huff’s nonindividual PAGA claims based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which rejected Viking River’s interpretation of California law on standing. The court did not address Huff’s arguments concerning the electronic signature, as the reversal based on Adolph rendered it unnecessary.The court remanded the case with directions to stay Huff’s nonindividual PAGA claims pending the completion of arbitration. Huff was awarded her costs on appeal. View "Huff v. Interior Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

Annalycia Jenkins, a former employee of Dermatology Management, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit against her employer after resigning. She alleged unfair competition, and the employer sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Jenkins signed on her first day of work. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.The San Luis Obispo County Superior Court found the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable due to its lack of mutuality, shortened statute of limitations, unreasonable discovery restrictions, and requirement for the parties to equally share the arbitrator’s fees and costs. Procedurally, the court noted the agreement was a contract of adhesion, pre-signed by the employer months before Jenkins was hired, and presented to her on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without the presence of the Chief People Officer.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable due to the inequality of bargaining power and the pre-signed nature of the agreement. It also upheld the finding of substantive unconscionability, noting the lack of mutuality, the unreasonable one-year statute of limitations, the unfair cost-sharing provision, and the restrictive discovery terms. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the unconscionable provisions, as doing so would condone an illegal scheme and incentivize employers to draft one-sided agreements. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Jenkins v. Dermatology Management, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc. by several plaintiffs who allege that the company required them to perform unpaid off-the-clock work and made unauthorized edits to their time records. The plaintiffs, who worked as shift managers, claim that Bojangles violated its own policies and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not compensating them for all hours worked, including overtime.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina conditionally certified a collective action for the FLSA claims and later certified class actions for state wage-and-hour law claims in North Carolina and South Carolina. The district court found that the proposed classes met the requirements for numerosity, commonality, and predominance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court relied on the fact that most class members worked opening shifts and were subject to Bojangles’ Opening Checklist, which allegedly required pre-shift work. The court defined the classes broadly to include all shift managers who worked at Bojangles in North Carolina or South Carolina within three years of the complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s certification order. The appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by employing an overly general approach in identifying the policies that allegedly unified the class members’ claims and by creating overly broad class definitions. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court failed to provide specific evidence of a common policy that mandated off-the-clock work and time-record edits for all class members. The court vacated the certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to refine the class definitions and ensure that common questions predominate over individualized issues. View "Stafford v. Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc." on Justia Law

Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica, one of ten related LLCs operating Erewhon markets in Los Angeles. As a condition of his employment, he signed an arbitration agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez later filed a class action lawsuit against all ten Nowhere entities, alleging various Labor Code violations. He claimed that all entities were his joint employers, sharing control over his employment conditions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the motion to compel arbitration for Nowhere Santa Monica but denied it for the other entities, finding no evidence that Gonzalez's claims against the non-signatory entities were intertwined with his claims against Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez then dismissed his complaint against Nowhere Santa Monica, and the other entities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Gonzalez was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-Santa Monica entities because his claims against them were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. The court reasoned that Gonzalez's joint employer theory inherently linked his claims to the obligations under the employment agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. Therefore, it would be unfair for Gonzalez to claim joint employment for liability purposes while denying the arbitration agreement's applicability.The appellate court reversed the lower court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration for the non-Santa Monica entities, concluding that all of Gonzalez's claims should be arbitrated. View "Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC" on Justia Law

In 2021, New Jersey enacted the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), which prohibits employers from refusing to hire job applicants based on cannabis use. In 2022, a retailer rescinded a job offer to an applicant, Erick Zanetich, after he tested positive for cannabis. Zanetich filed a lawsuit claiming the retailer's action violated CREAMMA and public policy. He sought redress individually and on behalf of a putative class.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed both counts of Zanetich's complaint. The court found that CREAMMA does not imply a private remedy for violations of its employment protections and that New Jersey's public policy exception to at-will employment does not apply to job applicants. Zanetich appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit held that CREAMMA does not imply a private remedy for job applicants who fail drug tests for cannabis. The court applied New Jersey's modified Cort test and found that CREAMMA does not confer a special benefit on job applicants, there was no legislative intent to provide a private remedy, and implying such a remedy would not advance CREAMMA's purposes. Additionally, the court held that New Jersey's public policy exception to at-will employment, as established in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., does not extend to job applicants. The court also declined to certify the state-law issues to the New Jersey Supreme Court, finding no significant uncertainty or importance warranting certification. View "Zanetich v. WalMart Stores East Inc" on Justia Law

Eric and Todd Romano, trustees of the Romano Law, PL 401(k) Plan, filed a class action against John Hancock Life Insurance Company. They claimed that John Hancock breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by not passing through the value of foreign tax credits received from mutual funds to the defined-contribution plans. The Romanos argued that John Hancock should have used these credits to reduce the administrative fees charged to the plans.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of John Hancock, concluding that John Hancock was not an ERISA fiduciary regarding the foreign tax credits and did not breach any fiduciary duties. The court also ruled that the Romanos and the class lacked Article III standing because they failed to establish loss causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that John Hancock was not an ERISA fiduciary concerning the foreign tax credits because these credits were not plan assets. The court explained that the foreign tax credits were a result of John Hancock's ownership of mutual fund shares and were not held in trust for the benefit of the plans. Additionally, the court found that John Hancock did not have discretionary authority over the management or administration of the separate accounts that would make it a fiduciary under ERISA. Consequently, the Romanos' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and engaging in prohibited transactions failed as a matter of law. View "Romano v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA)" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioners sought to disqualify a trial court judge based on alleged bias and prejudice. The key facts revolve around a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit initiated by the real parties in interest against the petitioners, their employer. During the litigation, the trial judge made comments suggesting the petitioners were attempting to evade liability through corporate restructuring. These comments were cited by the petitioners as evidence of bias.The Fresno County Superior Court judge struck the petitioners' statement of disqualification as untimely. The petitioners then sought writ review in the Court of Appeal, which held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) precluded the application of the timeliness requirement in section 170.3(c)(1) when a party alleges judicial bias or prejudice. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the nonwaiver provision should be interpreted to prohibit all forms of waiver, including implied waiver due to untimeliness.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeal's interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) applies only to judicial self-disqualification and does not affect the timeliness requirement for party-initiated disqualification attempts under section 170.3(c)(1). The Court emphasized that the statutory text, structure, legislative history, and case law support this interpretation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for the lower court to determine whether the petitioners' statement of disqualification was filed in a timely manner. View "North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Three former satellite service technicians filed a class action lawsuit against their employer, DirectSat USA, LLC, alleging violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They claimed that DirectSat failed to compensate them for work-related tasks performed beyond forty hours per week. The district court initially certified a class of full-time Illinois DirectSat technicians but later vacated this certification and certified a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class to resolve fifteen questions related to DirectSat’s liability.The case was reassigned to another district judge in 2019. Before the trial, the district court decertified the Rule 23(c)(4) class. The plaintiffs settled their individual claims but reserved the right to appeal the decertification decision. The district court found that the class action was not a superior method for adjudicating the plaintiffs' controversy due to the variance in the amount of time technicians spent on work-related tasks and the individualized nature of their piece-rate compensation system.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a party seeking certification of an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) must show that common questions predominate in the resolution of the specific issues to be certified, not the entire cause of action. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to decertify the class, concluding that a class action was not a superior method for resolving the controversy due to the individualized nature of the claims and the necessity for numerous separate trials to determine liability and damages. View "Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. (GOH) engaged in a scheme to underpay its employees by misappropriating fringe benefits owed under the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) and the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA). This led to two class-action lawsuits against GOH. GOH sought coverage under its insurance policy with Twin City Fire Insurance Company (Twin City), which denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage. GOH and its Board of Directors counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that certain claims in the class actions were covered under the policy.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed GOH's counterclaims, concluding that the claims were not covered under the policy due to a policy exclusion for claims related to "Wage and Hour Violations." The court also granted Twin City's motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirming that Twin City had no duty to defend or indemnify GOH for the class-action claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit agreed that the claims in question were not covered under the policy because they were related to wage and hour violations, which were explicitly excluded from coverage. The court emphasized that the exclusion applied broadly to any claims "based upon, arising from, or in any way related to" wage and hour violations, and found that the factual allegations in the class actions were indeed related to such violations. Thus, Twin City had no duty to defend or indemnify GOH under the terms of the policy. View "Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Glenn O. Hawbake, Inc." on Justia Law

A former employee, Campbell, filed a putative class action lawsuit against her employer, Sunshine Behavioral Health, LLC, alleging wage and hour violations. Campbell claimed that employees were not paid proper overtime, were required to work through meal and rest breaks without compensation, were not paid minimum wage, and were not paid in a timely manner. Sunshine initially proceeded with litigation and agreed to participate in mediation. However, Sunshine later claimed to have discovered an arbitration agreement signed by Campbell, which included a class action waiver.The Superior Court of Orange County found that Sunshine had waived its right to compel arbitration. Despite allegedly discovering the arbitration agreement in November 2022, Sunshine continued to engage in mediation discussions and did not inform Campbell or the court of its intent to compel arbitration until March 2023. Sunshine's delay and conduct were deemed inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, leading the court to conclude that Sunshine had waived its right to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that Sunshine had waived its right to arbitration. The court noted that Sunshine's actions, including agreeing to mediation on a class-wide basis and delaying the motion to compel arbitration, were inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The court emphasized that Sunshine's conduct demonstrated an intentional abandonment of the right to arbitrate, thus affirming the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Campbell v. Sunshine Behavioral Health" on Justia Law