Repeat Plaintiff Failed to Allege Fraud With Particularity, Says Cognizant
The U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa should dismiss with prejudice plaintiff Zuania Vazquez-Padilla’s fraud complaint that alleged Cognizant Technology should be held accountable for a “willfully misleading” job description, said Cognizant's motion to dismiss Monday (docket 8:23-cv-02607).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Vazquez-Padilla worked as a content moderator for Cognizant, which previously provided that service for Facebook, the motion said. Its content moderators reviewed postings on Facebook to determine whether they violated the social media platform’s terms of use. Vazquez-Padilla worked as a content moderator for Cognizant for about 17 months and claimed reviewing graphic content caused her to develop psychological injuries.
In a joint motion last week, both parties requested that U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Barber for Middle Florida in Tampa transfer their case to Judge Mary Scriven, also in Middle Florida (see 2401170031). Proceeding under different judges “presents the probability of inefficiency and inconsistency,” said their motion.
Scriven presides over an earlier-filed action where Vazquez-Padilla initially asserted the same claims, the motion said. Vazquez-Padilla’s lawsuit arises out of the Aguilo v. Cognizant class action (docket 8:21-cv-002054), which the court dismissed without prejudice, it said.
Plaintiffs brought a second lawsuit against Cognizant on the same theories of fraud, and the court dismissed the claims again “because the plaintiffs failed to plead their fraud claims with particularity and failed to allege a duty to disclose,” the motion said. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that Cognizant failed to disclose the dangers of content moderation under the claim of fraudulent concealment, it said.
The court dismissed all claims in the amended complaint because the plaintiffs “still failed to allege fraud with particularity and failed to allege a duty to disclose,” the motion said. The court also dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, saying the claim failed as a matter of law “because the plaintiffs admitted they continued to work at Cognizant even after discovering Cognizant’s purported fraud,” it said.
Because not all plaintiffs adequately alleged when they discovered the purported fraud, the court dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim without prejudice “to allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to reallege ... the date when they discovered the purported fraud and the damages they claim to have suffered,” the motion said. The plaintiffs “still failed to comply with Rule 9(b),” and the court found that the consolidation of over 150 individual plaintiffs’ fraud claims in one lawsuit “was improper,” so it ordered any plaintiff choosing to file an amended claim to file an individual lawsuit, the motion said.
Vazquez-Padilla filed the current lawsuit in November (see 2311150021) re-alleging her fraudulent misrepresentation claim, the motion said. She fails to allege the specific dates she discovered the fraud, “despite the Court’s directive, but admits she knew she would be viewing graphic material as a content moderator and that she chose to continue to work at Cognizant after she learned the true nature of her job,” it said.
The plaintiff said she learned Cognizant had misrepresented the job “gradually” but doesn’t explain what that means, “particularly in light of her more specific allegations regarding her immediate assignment to the ‘child suicide queue,’ and her allegations about what she then purportedly saw every day thereafter,” the motion said. The complaint shows that Vazquez-Padilla “knew of the fraud, at the absolute latest, on her first day on the job,” it said: “At the very least, the falsity should have been obvious to Plaintiff then.”
Scriven already dismissed Vazquez-Padilla’s claim against Cognizant and “nothing in this revised pleading cures the legal deficiencies inherent in her claims,” the motion said.