Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 279
pay for untipped and off-the-clock work in violation of the FLSA. The court conditionally
certified a collective action, and 14 opt-in plaintiffs joined the action. Several of the
named plaintiffs then filed stipulations of dismissal for various reasons, including that
they were not tipped employees or were paid above minimum wage. The court
determined that it did not have authority to review of any such dismissal agreements
pursuant to Rule 41(a). The court reasoned that Rule 41(a) empowers parties to
voluntarily dismiss nearly all civil lawsuits at any time without the need for the court’s
approval, except for disputes regarding a few, specifically enumerated federal laws,
which does not include the FLSA. The court concluded that absent any Congressional
or Supreme Court guidance empowering the review of individual FLSA claim dismissals,
it must grant the plaintiffs’ stipulations for dismissal.
N.
Application Of Res Judicata Principles In Class Actions
The principle of res judicata applies to class actions, which often adds a layer of
defense for corporate defendants to subsequent, follow on litigation. When a matter has
been previously filed and fully litigated against the defendant, the concept underlying
this principle mandates dismissal of the second lawsuit. Likewise, when matters meet
the requirements of res judicata, courts are willing to dismiss the actions with prejudice.
The court analyzed res judicata principles in a class action in Durham, et al. v. City Of
Charlotte, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187028 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 14, 2022). The plaintiff, a
resident, filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated privacy laws by making
car accident reports public in violation of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the court denied the motion. The plaintiff
sought to represent a proposed class of North Carolina drivers for liquidated damages
and declaratory and injunctive relief under the DPPA. The court ruled that the plaintiff
sufficiently alleged she suffered an injury by the defendant’s release of the accident
reports. The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed
because they were substantially similar to a previously filed action in which
judgmentwas entered in the defendant’s favor. Therefore, the defendant argued that the
plaintiff’s claims were precluded by the legal-relationship exception, which is triggered
by “a variety of pre-existing ‘substantive legal relationships,” and the class action
exception, which bars the claims of those who were “adequately represented” in a
“properly conducted class action.” Id. at *5-6. The court determined that the legalrelationship exception did not apply because it deals solely with legal properly-based
relationships. The court also found that the class action exemption did not apply
because the other action was never certified as a class action, and therefore the
plaintiff, as only a putative class member, did not receive any of the Rule 23 protections.
For these reasons, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
O.
Class Communication Issues
In some circumstances, courts will exercise their authority to limit communications
between class members and other organizations that may seek to advocate on behalf of
potential class members.
278
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
