Intervenors in CVS Class Action Lawsuit Barred from Seeking Opt-Outs

A California federal court recently issued an emergency injunction in a CVS class action lawsuit in order to stop two intervenors from pushing Class Members to opt out of a $9 million settlement for California Labor Law violations.

The two proposed intervenors reportedly serve as plaintiffs in a similar wage and hour lawsuit against CVS. According to the injunction ruling, these intervenors overstepped by sending text messages to settlement Class Members. These efforts reportedly encouraged Class Members to opt out of a pending settlement – with around 60 Class Members having opted out online.

Texts from the intervenors reportedly warned Class Members that the proposed settlement is a “danger” and “not in [their] best interests.” Further, the texts reportedly sent Class Members to a website which U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. found to contain “confusing and misleading” statements about the case, damages, and other facts.

According to Judge Birotte, the conduct by the proposed intervenors is harmful to both the plaintiffs and the Class Members. Class Members may be misled by these statements and “coerced” into opting out of the settlement.

“In sum, given the misleading statements in the text message and linked web pages, the Court is persuaded that there is a significant risk that any further communications from the [intervenors] would cause confusion and interfere with the fairness and orderly proceeding of the settlement approval process,” Judge Birotte wrote in his ruling.

As such, the judge granted a temporary restraining order against the intervenors and ordered them to make changes to their website including the removal of the online opt out form and any information about the settlement deal. The intervenors were also ordered to stop speaking with settlement Class Members about the case. Judge Birotte is reportedly considering invalidating the 60 some opt out requests solicited by the other plaintiffs.

CVS Class Action Lawsuit & Settlement

Plaintiff Sevag C. filed his CVS class action lawsuit in July 2016, alleging that the pharmacy failed to pay him and other workers the overtime and minimum wages they were owed. As a result of these failures, workers like Sevag were allegedly given inaccurate wage statements and deserved waiting time penalties which were not paid to them.

A similar CVS class action lawsuit was filed in August 2017 by plaintiff Sigredo Cabrera. Several additional plaintiffs were added to this case. In 2018, due to the similarities between Sevag and Sigredo’s cases, counsel for the plaintiffs decided to prosecute the issue together.

In June 2020, the plaintiffs in the case filed a motion in court proposing to resolve the case in a $9.75 million settlement deal.

The plaintiffs seek to represent two Classes of CVS workers in their class action lawsuit settlement. The first Class includes hourly, non-exempt retail pharmacists who worked in Regions 65 or 72 in California since July 20, 2012 and whose work data shows activity when punch records don’t show they were clocked in. The second proposed Class includes hourly, non-exempt retail workers who worked for CVS Pharmacy in California since Aug. 3, 2014 and who aren’t part of the Pharmacist Class.

Individuals who previously released or adjudicated their claims against CVS are not eligible for the settlement.

Under the terms of the deal, around $6.5 million would be allocated to Class Members while $75,000 would pay penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). PAGA allows wage and hour claims to be brought against companies by their employees on only for the employees sake but also on behalf of the state’s government. In the event of a verdict or settlement, a portion of the recovery is paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency in the form of penalties for labor law violations.

The recent injunction was ruled against two proposed “intervenors” – plaintiffs in a similar case which argue that their case should be consolidated with the current case. The two plaintiffs filed their motion to intervene in June 2020, though the settlement plaintiffs argued against the move.

According to the settlement plaintiffs, the intervenor’s case is not related to their own despite vaguely overlapping claims. Primarily, the plaintiffs took issue with the intervenors’ proposed Class which was much broader than their own. They also noted that the intervenors never contacted plaintiff counsel in the CVS class action lawsuit until after they learned of the settlement deal.

Shortly after hearing these arguments, the court agreed and denied the intervenor’s claims. Now, after filing an objection, the intervenors have been hit with a temporary restraining order.

The CVS PAGA Class Action Lawsuit is Case No. 2:16-cv-08979 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Join a Free California Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were forced to work off the clock or without overtime pay within the past 3 years in California, you have rights – and you don’t have to take on the company alone.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now