Aguilo v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. U.S. Corp.
| Docket Number | 8:21-cv-2054-KKM-AEP |
| Decision Date | 10 June 2022 |
| Parties | AALIYAH AGUILO et al., Plaintiffs, v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against it for fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation and medical monitoring based on Plaintiffs' prior employment with Cognizant as content moderators for Facebook. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiffs oppose Cognizant's motion to dismiss. (Doc 15.)
In an earlier case brought by thirteen of the 131 Plaintiffs in this case, those plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Cognizant and Facebook alleging fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation as well as negligence and a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA). Due to pleading deficiencies the earlier putative class action was dismissed. See Garrett-Alfred v. Facebook, Inc., 540 F.Supp.3d 1129 (M.D. Fla. 2021) (Mizelle, J.). Rather than seek leave to amend in the prior action, those thirteen Plaintiffs joined with additional former content moderators and filed this new action in state court, this time alleging claims only for fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation and medical monitoring against Cognizant. After timely removing to federal court, Cognizant moves to dismiss based on similar pleading defects as the first complaint.
Although Plaintiffs cured some of the pleading deficiencies in this second action, they have not remedied all of them, thereby necessitating the Complaint's dismissal.
Based on a written contract, Cognizant provided content moderation services to Facebook. (Doc. 1-3 ¶¶ 6, 60.) Those services involved reviewing media content reported by Facebook's users and removing any content that violated Facebook's terms of use-in other words, moderating Facebook's content. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) While content moderation can be done either electronically using algorithms or through human review, Cognizant provided the latter kind. (Id. ¶ 11.)
To determine if the content violated Facebook's terms of use, Cognizant's content moderators reviewed large amounts of graphic and vile content posted on Facebook-such as murders, tortures, child pornography, and rapes. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11.) Early in 2020, Cognizant shut down its operations, including its Tampa location, and terminated all its content moderators. (Id. ¶ 61-62.)
On February 5, 2020, thirteen former Cognizant content moderators filed a putative class action against both Cognizant and Facebook in state court, which Cognizant then removed to federal court. See Garrett-Alfred v. Facebook, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-0585 (M.D. Fla. 2020). The plaintiffs in that action, who purported to represent a class of all Cognizant-employed content moderators in Florida and Arizona, alleged that Cognizant failed to disclose the inherent dangers associated with content moderation and that the plaintiffs suffered from PTSD and other physical and psychological harms from reviewing large amounts of graphic content. See Garrett-Alfred, 540 F.Supp.3d at 1134-35.
The plaintiffs in that first action asserted claims against Cognizant for fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation and for violating FDUPTA. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' FDUPTA claim with prejudice and the fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation claim without prejudice. See id. at 1144. While the plaintiffs did not bring a separate medical monitoring claim, the dismissal order explained that, even if they had separately alleged a medical monitoring claim, the claim was most likely inapplicable to the alleged facts. Id. at 1142-43. The plaintiffs in the prior action never sought leave to amend.
Instead, on July 27, 2021, 131 former employees who worked at Cognizant's Tampa location, including the thirteennamed plaintiffs from the first action, brought this action against Cognizant in state court. (Doc. 1-3.) Plaintiffs jointly assert one claim for fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation (as in the former action) and one standalone claim for medical monitoring. (Id.) Plaintiffs' theory of liability remains the same as the putative class action: they seek damages and a medical monitoring fund to treat “the psychological trauma and related physical injuries” Cognizant caused by “deliberately concealing” and “fraudulently misrepresenting” to Plaintiffs the known dangers of longterm and unmitigated content moderation. (Id. ¶ 1.) Cognizant removed this action, (Doc. 1), and moves to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, (Doc. 12). Plaintiffs oppose that motion. (Doc. 15.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This pleading standard “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is plausible when a plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. When considering the motion, the court accepts all factual allegations of the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). Courts should limit their “consideration to the well-pleaded factual allegations, documents central to or referenced in the complaint, and matters judicially noticed.” La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004).
For claims that sound in fraud, a plaintiff must satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, which requires that “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” That rule requires a complaint to state: (1) “precisely what statements or omissions were made in which documents or oral representations”; (2) “the time and place of each such statement and the person responsible for making (or, in the case of omissions, not making) them”; (3) “the content of such statements and the manner in which they misled the plaintiff'; and (4) “what the defendant obtained as a consequence of the fraud.” In re Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. Secs. Litig., 843 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2016); see also Infante v. Bank of Am. Corp., 680 F.Supp.2d 1298, 1302-03 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (Gold, J.) (). This particularity requirement is intended to alert defendants to the “precise misconduct with which they are charged” and to protect them “against spurious charges of immoral and fraudulent behavior.” Ziemba v. Cascade Int'l, Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted).
While leave to amend a complaint is usually freely given, it is not required when amendment would be futile. See Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) ().
Cognizant argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim either for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation (Count I) or medical monitoring (Count II). As to the former, Cognizant argues that the Complaint lacks sufficient facts to satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). Further, Cognizant contends that the fraudulent concealment claim fails because Cognizant owed Plaintiffs no duty to disclose this information and, regardless, a reasonable person exercising due diligence would know that repeated exposure to graphic content could negatively impact mental health. (Doc. 12 at 6-20.) As for medical monitoring, Cognizant argues that claim fails because Florida law does not recognize medical monitoring for psychological harms and because Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege facts supporting each element. (Id. at 20-24.)
Under Florida law, a fraudulent concealment claim requires that (1) the defendant “concealed or failed to disclose a material fact”; (2) the defendant “knew or should have known the material fact should be disclosed”; (3) the defendant “knew his concealment of or failure to disclose the material fact would induce the plaintiffs to act”; (4) the defendant “had a duty to disclose the material fact; and (5) the plaintiffs detrimentally relied on the misinformation.” Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So.3d 687, 691 (Fla. 2015) (quotation omitted); accord Cote v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 909 F.3d 1094, 1106 n.6 (11th Cir. 2018). Because the allegations lack the particularity demanded by Rule 9(b) and Plaintiffs identify no special relationship between themselves and Cognizant that requires a duty to disclose under Florida law, the fraudulent concealment claim fails.
To continue reading
Request your trial