Class Action Insider

Last week, in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., the Illinois Supreme Court confirmed that each violation of BIPA constitutes a distinct and separately actionable violation of the statute. 

On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff Alfred Johnson filed a class action complaint on behalf of more than 14,000 job applicants in California state court against WinCo Foods (WinCo), seeking reimbursement for the time and travel expenses incurred while traveling to take a drug test.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were WinCo employees at the time they obtained a drug test.  The case was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act in November 2017, and a class was certified in March 2020.  On August 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their motion for partial summary judgment as to whether class members were WinCo employees. On August 3, 2020, WinCo filed its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative partial summary judgment. The district court held that as a matter of law, WinCo was entitled to summary judgment as to the entire class on the issue of whether class members were employees at the time of drug testing.

When a putative class action complaint hits their desk, among the first things that should cross a defense attorney’s mind—whether in-house or outside counsel—is venue.  For state-court cases specifically, “can this case be removed to federal court?”  Removal is usually beneficial to defendants—though it can sometimes be better not to remove, and that question should be carefully analyzed. 

On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff Lorraine Adell filed a class action complaint in Ohio federal court against Verizon Wireless, seeking damages arising from Verizon’s imposition of certain administrative charges.