8/11/2019 Class and Collective Actions

1/2KutakRock.com

No Business Owner is safe.Class and Collective Actions Are The New Normal.

Aggressive, Preemptive Strategy Wins

Plaintiffs attorneys are going to extraordinary lengths to land those

ucrative lawsuits. Take a look at the website TopClassActions.com.

Excerpt from the website:

Do you want to start a class action? If you think you have a ca

possible class action lawsuit, a prescription drug side effect lawsuit t

not currently covered in the active investigations section or ano

issue you would like to reports this is how to do it. All submission

the form below are reviewed by Top Class Actions. If you have prob

submitting your reports please send us the details listed below

staff@topclassactions.com for review. Whenever possible, please

the form below. If that doesnt works you can email Top Class Ac

the information.

No business is safe. Multiple-plain-tiff class and collective actions arehe new normal. These lawsuits arise from

very aspect of business, ranging from claims

egarding faulty products or unfair pricing;

ailure to reimburse employees for cell phone

xpenses; failure to pay overtime; and all manner

f workplace claims by current and former employees. The reason

or the rise in these claims? Plaintiffs attorneys are looking to cash

in on laws that award attorneys fees to the prevailing part

class actions. While the class/collective action plaintiffs may re

only a few hundred dollars for their claims, their attorneys

receive hundreds of thousands of dollars for their representa

and courts often give little consideration to the amount of reco

in proportion to attorneys fees. In a recent class action la

involving the pricing of baby products, In re Baby Products Ant

Litigation, a court allocated $3 million in payment to the

members, $18.5 million to charitable purposes, and $14 mil

in attorneys fees.

Alan L. Rupe | 800-787-3529 | Alan.Rupe@KutakRock.com

Alan L. Rupe

Lucrative Lawsuits

If you need to speak with an attorney about minimizing the risk of a class action suit, or in defending an impending class or collective action suit, please contact yKutak Rock attorney, or Alan Rupe, the author of this case study.

This case study is a publication of Kutak Rock LLP. This publication is intended to notify our clients and f riends of current events and provide general information about class and colleaction lawsuits. This case study is not intended, nor should it be used, as legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication should not be used or referred to in the promotmarketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, and such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoidpenalties under the Internal Revenue Code.

Kutak Rock LLP 2013All Rights Reserved

This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.

8/11/2019 Class and Collective Actions

2/2KutakRock.com

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Across the country in California, a group of plaintiffs at-tempted to certify a class of more than 1,500 currentnd former employees of another Kutak Rock client. These plain-

iffs sought to require

he employer to

eimburse employ-es under the Cali-

ornia Labor Code

or certain alleged

mployee-incurred

usiness expenses related to their cell phone use.

The majority of California courts have ruled that

hese types of California Labor Code violations apply general-

y to other expenses. Plaintiffs retained an expert who opined

hat surveys could be used to identify the extent of liability and

amages for failure to reimburse a putative class for cell phone

se.

The Result

Over plaintiffs strenuous objections, we took the depositions

f a representative group of putative plaintiffs. That deposition

estimony illustrated a substantial variance among each individ-

als cell phone plan; a majority of the deponents had plans that

llowed unlimited minutes. Since the depositions produced dif-

ferent facts regarding liability, the C

fornia court ultimately ruled that

certification was improper, reaso

that a class action was not an appro

ate method to determine the reimbu

ment loss to the putative plaintiffs.

class claims were summarily dismissed. Perhaps not

prisingly, plaintiffs have appealed the courts ruling.

Two different caseson opposite coasts. In both of t

cases, we initiated an aggressive, preemptive strategy of fili

motion to strike class certification, following President Fran

D. Roosevelts often-cited strategy, When you see a rattlesn

poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before

crush him.

Our best defense was a strong offense. In both cases,

strategy reduced the time, the discovery, and the resou

needed to defend the class action law suits.

When you see a rattlesnake poised

to strike, you do not wait until he hasstruck before you crush him.

Successfully battling class and collective actions is what we do

for our clients. In two recent class action cases filed in courts

n opposite sides of the country, we won significant victories for our

lients. These two recent decisions illustrate how we defend class and

ollective actions: aggressively, quickly, and successfully.

In the case of Spellman, et al. v. AEX, filed in federal court

n Pennsylvania, plaintiffs were delivery drivers who delivered

harmaceutical and financial cargo to customers of our client. Plaintiffs

lleged our client misclassified them and other similarly-situated

ndividuals as independent contractors and violated the Fair Labor

tandards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation. The case was

nitially certified as a collective action under the lenient standard of

ection 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Two hundred twelve

individuals opted in and consented to join as plaintiffs. The case

made difficult because our client is governed by federal regulation

impose specific requirements to ensure the safety of cargo. How

we aggressively defended the case and deposed a number of the o

class members.

The Result

The depositions revealed individual differences in rele

matters, including use of uniforms, call-in requirements, and am

of instruction. The court relied upon these differences in ruling

the case should be decertified. This resulted in a dismissal o

claims but for the nine individuals who originally filed

class action.

Case Study #1

Case Study #2

Class and Collective Action