Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 387
APPENDIX 2
Sanctions Issues In Class Actions In 2022
A.
Decisions Granting Sanctions
Hornady, et al. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181307 (S.D.
Ala. Oct. 4, 2022) (affirming sanction of a default judgment of approximately $13 million
in damages against the defendant on all of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims brought
by the three named plaintiffs representing a certified collective action of current and
former employees seeking unpaid overtime pay, due to the defendant’s repeated failure
to produce pay records, time records, and incentive plan data during discovery).
Gui Zhen Zhu, et al. v. Matsu Corp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59517 (D. Conn. Mar. 31,
2022) (striking answer and entering default judgment against defendants in a wage and
hour collective action as a sanction under Rule 37(b) where their counsel disobeyed a
court order to provide a class list for the provision of notice of a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act by a specified date and withdrew his appearance without
securing substitute counsel).
Asset Acceptance, LLC, et al. v. Caszatt, 2022 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1716 (Ohio Ct.
Common Pleas Sept. 1. 2022) (granting motion for civil contempt and awarding
sanctions against the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant where the plaintiff violated a class
action settlement agreement in a debt collection class action; the sanctioned party was
ordered to pay $387,314.04 in remedial damages to class members who were wrongly
subject to collections after the settlement and to pay the defendant/counterclaim
plaintiff’s counsel $1,161,942.12 in attorney’s fees, along with and an additional
monetary sanction of $1,190,000.00 if the equitable remedies provided for in the
contempt order were not satisfied within 30 days of the order.)
Earls, et al. v. Menard, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61363 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 31, 2022)
(motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 granted where plaintiffs’ counsel should
have known that the named plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses revealed no factual basis
for allegations they were improperly denied rebates from home improvement store, yet
they litigated case for several more months).
O'Rourke, et al. v. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34194
(10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2022) (affirming award of sanctions in the amount of $187,000
under the district court’s inherent powers and 29 U.S.C. § 1927 against attorneys who
filed a civil rights class action alleging the defendants violated the constitutional rights of
every person who was registered to vote in the 2020 election and seeking damages of
$160 billion; after the district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of Article III standing,
the defendants moved for an award of attorneys’ fees for the cost of preparing the
motion to dismiss and opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint, which
the Tenth Circuit affirmed because the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding their purported
386
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
