Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 277
that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The Ninth Circuit concluded that it
need not resolve whether federal or state law applied here because even if res judicata
applied, it would still find that the district court did not abuse its discretion on denying
the preliminary injunction.
K.
All Writs Act Issues In Class Actions
The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, allow courts to "issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law." The act in its original form was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
In 1199 SEIU United HealthCare Workers East, et al. v. PSC Community Services,
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185917 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2022), the court considered the
application of the All Writs Act. The action arose out of arbitration proceedings involving
the plaintiff, a union, and the defendants, a group of home care agencies. The union
filed two petitions for confirmation of arbitration awards pursuant to the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), seeking to confirm an award addressing
issues of arbitrability and jurisdiction, and to confirm an award resolving the union’s
grievance against the defendants on the merits of the union’s claims. One of the
defendants, United Jewish Council of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp.
(UJC) moved for a preliminary and/or permanent injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act,
enjoining the Hichez plaintiffs, from prosecuting putative class claims brought against it
in a state court action The arbitrator had ruled that the arbitration proceeding would “not
be binding upon” any individual home care employees “whose claims have been held
not to be subject to arbitration by state or federal courts,” including the three Hichez
plaintiffs. The Hichez plaintiffs contended that confirmation of the Awards resolved the
claims of the former UJC employees who were the Hichez plaintiffs’ proposed class,
and that allowing them to proceed with a class action on behalf of the same employees
would force UJC to relitigate those claims in a state forum. The court concluded that the
award and the confirmation, which did not bind the three named Hichez plaintiffs - but
did resolve the claims of the putative class members - were wholly consistent with the
rulings in the state court action, and thus, an injunction would be appropriate. The court
further ruled that the injunction would not limit the ability of the Hichez plaintiffs to
pursue their own claims individually, would not constrain the discovery that the Hichez
plaintiffs could seek in support of those individual claims, and that UJC would likely
incur irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, the
court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction.
L.
Intervention Issues In Class Actions
Intervention is a tactic that is used by some plaintiffs to participate in ongoing class
action litigation. In a key ruling on this issue in 2022, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
denial of the plaintiff’s attempt to intervene in a class action after a settlement had been
reached in Ali, et al. v. City Of Chicago, 34 F.4th 594 (7th Cir. 2022). There the plaintiff
filed an action alleging that the defendants, the City of Chicago and multiple police
officers, violated his constitutionally rights when he was detained overnight and not
permitted to post bond on an out-of-county warrant for another person who happened to
276
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
