Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 333
d/b/a Suddenlink Communications on the grounds that the defendant unlawfully
charged Gurdon and other Arkansas cities fees associated with telephone, internet, and
cable services. Id. at *1. The defendant filed both a motion to compel arbitration and in
the alternative a motion to dismiss. Id. at *2. Without ruling on either of the defendant’s
motions, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and ordered
that a class should be certified for the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims,
and defined the class as Arkansas cities which have been charged or have paid the
defendant’s fees identified as 911 fees, franchise fees, and/or other related fees. On
appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court first found that the trial court did not rule on the
defendant’s motions to compel and dismiss; therefore, these issues were not
appealable. Id. at *3. Turning to the class certification ruling, the defendant argued that
the plaintiff failed to satisfy the commonality and predominance requirements because
the plaintiff did not identify a cause of action. Id. at *4-5. The Arkansas Supreme Court
rejected that argument because the plaintiff and the class of other Arkansas cities
sought declaratory relief that the municipalities were not subject to 911 and other fees
under the provisions of the state’s safety act, and that the class was not allowed to use
public funds for such fees. Id. at *5. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion because the declaratory relief sought presented questions of law
and fact common to the class, and that these common questions predominate even
though the charges may vary among the class. Id. at *6-7. Along similar lines, the
Supreme Court found the typicality requirement was satisfied because the claims arose
from the same course of conduct and were based on the same legal theory. Id. at *7.
The adequacy requirement was satisfied because the city had qualified attorneys. Id. at
*8. Finally, the superiority requirement was met because all the cities were challenging
the same fees, and resolving the claims in one action, as opposed to multiple dispersed
trials, was fair to all parties. Id. at *9. Although upholding class certification, the
Supreme Court also noted that the defendant could have sought an extraordinary writ to
force the trial court to rule on the motion to compel, which would have made any denial
an appealable issue.
California
California is the epi-center of class actions filed in state courts. It has more class action
litigation than any other state. While all varieties of class-wide cases are filed in
California, a high majority are consumer fraud and employment-related.
Even where an employer’s written, formal policies appear facially neutral and compliant,
employees may successfully seek class certification for demonstrating common issues
where an employer’s practices and protocols allegedly violate the law.
In Cruz, et al. v. Health, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 42883 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 9, 2022),
the plaintiff filed a class action against his former employer, Dignity Health d/b/a
Bruceville Terrace (Terrace) for wage and hour violations stemming from Terrace
allegedly utilizing a time rounding policy that systemically resulted in uncompensated
hours worked, as well as for failing to provide the plaintiff and other hourly employees
with full, uninterrupted meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code. Id. at
*2. The plaintiff also brought derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements, failing to
332
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
