/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200210.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 29
Headlines
500.COM LIMITED: Faces Sun Suit in N.J. Over Drop in Share Prices
ABI JAPANESSE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Neri Says
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Williams Sues Over Debt Collection Letter
ALLERGAN INC: K.P. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
AMAZON.COM: Rober Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Weiss Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection
ASSETCARE LLC: Murray Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
AUSTRALIA GOV'T: Climate Activists and Lawyers Itching to Sue
BATH PLANET OF ARKANSAS: Stafford Files FDCPA Suit in Arkansas
BEAUTY BIOSCIENCES: Kiler Files Suit in New York
BOEING COMPANY: Sued by James for Hiding Design Flaws of 737 MAX
BP EXPLORATION: Gets Summary Judgment Granted in Escobar Action
BRIA HEALTH SERVICES: Yegger Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BUCKEYE RV: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dingus Claims
CH ROBINSON: Faces Moore PACA Suit Alleging False Accountings
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Rease Sues Over Unsolicited Text Ads
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Suarez Seeks to Certify Ex-Employees Class
CONFI-CHEK INC: Garza FCRA Suit Moved From E.D. Cal. to S.D. Tex.
CUSTOM TRUSS: Nunez Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CYTOSPORT INC: Deal in Clay Suit Denied Preliminary Approval
DAY & ZIMMERMANN: Court Denies Recusal Motion in Waters Labor Suit
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Endodontics Antitrust Suit in N.D. Illinois
DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Deleon Labor Suit Says
DINO PALMIERI: Protective Order Bid in Torres FLSA Suit Denied
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Prentice Balks at UnitedHealth Merger Deal
DIV HOLDINGS: King Sues Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
DR. DENNIS GROSS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Says
DVA CONTRACTING: Violates FLSA/NYLL Over OT Pay, Landaverde Says
ECOLAB INC: NJ District Court Certifies Class in Charlot FLSA Suit
ENDO HEALTH: Mentasta Sues Over Epidemic Addiction to Opioid Drug
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Reveal Chat Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme
FCA US: Trial Court Lifts Victoria Suit Stay, Sets Pretrial Dates
FEEJAYS LLC: Crosson Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
FIC AMERICA: Cannon Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
FIRST SOLAR: Court Rules on Bids to Bar Testimonies in Smilovits
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Rounds Suit Moved From Colo. to W.D. Oklahoma
FRIENDS HEALTH CARE: Faces Kim ADA Suit Over Unlawful Discharge
GARCIA DELIVERS: Villatoro Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Installers
GENOVA PRODUCTS: Green Seeks Wages and Benefits Under WARN Act
GLOW CONCEPT: Bunting Alleges Violation of ADA in New York
GREAT WASTE: Marin Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GROGAN LAW GROUP: Chelminski Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
HANKOOK TIRE: Dionysius Sues over Unpaid Overtime
HART GROUP: Faces Rosales Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
HEARTFELT HOME: Lucas Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
HENLEY PROPANE: Brown Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HUUUGE INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Bid Denial in Wilson Suit
INFINITY INSURANCE: Gets Summary Judgment Upheld in Hallums Suit
INFORMATICA LLC: Flynn FLSA Suit Moved From Calif. to W.D. Texas
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Court Affirms FINRA Award in Singh Fraud Suit
KALAMATA RESEARCH: Van Elzen Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
KELLY SERVICE: Use of Consumer Report Violates FCRA, Stanley Says
KITTRICH CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Krumm Fraud Suit
L'OCCITANE INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Desalvo Alleges
LAKE ARBOR: Ruseell Class Suit Remanded to State Court
LAWRENCE COUNTY, PA: Webster Moves to Certify Class of Appellants
LENDING TREE: Faces Nathan TCPA Suit Over Auto-Dialed Phone Calls
MACY'S INC: Chiaraluce et al. Sue over Linen Products Thread Count
MARDI GRA: LaRock Suit Removed to Massachusetts District Court
MAWKS EDELWEISS: Aniszewski Suit Dismissed Due to Settlement
MDL 2592: Objections to Private Deal Terms in Xarelto Suit Denied
MG 19501 BISCAYNE: Fails to Pay Sous Chefs Overtime, Mizell Says
MILANO MENSWEAR: Faces Mahoney ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MME CAPITAL: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
NATIONAL CREDIT: Carter Asserts Breach of FDCPA
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Lopez Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
NCAA: Baugus II Sues over McNeese Football Athletes' Injuries
NESAMA FOOD: Inga Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
NEW YORK, NY: Weaver Suit Over Civil Rights Violations Dismissed
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Certification Sought in Baleja Suit
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Carrero Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
OCWEN LOAN: Pantano Consumer Credit Suit Remanded to State Court
OMEGA PROJECT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morrison Claims
ORACLE CORP: Sunrise Firefighters' Suit Dismissed w/ Leave to Amend
P.C. RICHARD: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
PEARSALL CANDY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Mahmood Claims
PRAIRIE FARMS: Darby Sues over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream
PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS: Naiman Alleges Telephone Privacy Invasion
PUBLIC HEALTH: Lauzurique Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
QUICKEN LOANS: Sued by Winters Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
RALPHS GROCERY: Yannoulatos Sues Over Failure to Provide Seats
RENUE SYSTEMS: Sierra FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. New York
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Mack's Bid for Class Certification Granted
RSI HOME: Rodriguez Suit Moved to Central District of California
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Named Lead Plaintiff in Sec. Suit
SAUCE VENTURES: Conner Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
SAYEH PETROLEUM, INC: Mikich Files Suit in California
SL DISTRIBUTION: Macedonia's Bid to Certify Under Submission
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Philip Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SPORT LA. INC: Underpays Laborers, Aguilon et al. Allege
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Sebastian Suit Deal Gets Final Court OK
SYSCO CORP: $500K Settlement in Martin Suit Gets Final Approval
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faces Fisk Suit Over Merger With Blackstone
TEXAS: Court Dismisses Class Claims in Hoffman Prisoner Suit
TFS DINING: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Heath Claims
TRANS UNION: Lynn Sues Over Practices That Violate FCRA & NY FCRA
TRANSUNION LLC: Improperly Prepares Credit Reports, Khaimov Says
UHS OF HARTGROVE: Kelley Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
USM ACQUISITION: Underpays Part-time Employees, Bentley Says
VISKASE COMPANIES: 2 Classes of Workers Certified in Thomas Suit
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Levine Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VUUZLE MEDIA: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
W.D. WRIGHT CONTRACTING: Underpays Technicians, Bailey Alleges
WAWA INC: Sills Sues in Pennsylvania Over Fraud-Related Claims
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Thompson Suit Balks at Proposed Sale to Stryker
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Mararac Alleges Illegal Labor Practices
*********
500.COM LIMITED: Faces Sun Suit in N.J. Over Drop in Share Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FENGJUN SUN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 500.COM LIMITED, ZHENGMING PAN, and QIANG YUAN, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00485 (D.N.J., Jan. 15, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 500.com securities
between April 27, 2018, and December 31, 2019, inclusive.
On December 31, 2019, the Company issued a press release announcing
a Special Investigation Committee was formed by the Board of
Directors to investigate illegal money transfers and the role
played by consultants following the arrest of one current
consultant and two former consultants by the Tokyo District Public
Prosecutors Office. On this news, shares of 500.com fell $0.91 per
share or over 10% to close at $7.52 per share on January 2, 2020,
the following trading day, damaging investors.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased 500.com securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.
500.com, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide online
gaming services primarily in the People's Republic of China and
Europe. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
ABI JAPANESSE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Neri Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Leon Neri, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Abi Japanese Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Abi
Sushi, Abumi Japanese Cuisine Inc. d/b/a Abi Sushi, and John Does
#1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00581 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and others
minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery person,
but he had additional unrelated inside duties, such as cleaning the
restaurant and packaging soy sauce. He asserts that he was working
roughly 68 hours per week. He alleges that the Defendants did not
provide a time clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for
employees to track their time worked.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not need to track his
time because he was not paid based on the hours he worked. Instead,
he was paid a fixed salary that did not vary based on his hours. As
a result, the Plaintiff's effective rate of pay was always below
the statutory federal and state minimum wages in effect at relevant
times.
In addition to his pay, the Plaintiff generally received tips for
his delivery work, which he pooled with the other delivery people.
However, the Defendants never provided the Plaintiff with any
notices or information regarding the "tip credit." The Defendants
did not keep records of the tips received by the Plaintiff, says
the complaint.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that he and others similarly
situated are entitled to: compensation for wages paid at less than
the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from the Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law; back wages for overtime work for which the
Defendants willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay;
compensation for the Defendants' violations of the "spread of
hours" requirements of the NYLL; and liquidated damages pursuant to
the FLSA and the NYLL, because the Defendants' violations lacked a
good faith basis.
The Defendants owned and operated a sushi restaurant in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 563-9884
Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Williams Sues Over Debt Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accounts Receivable
Management Professional Services LLC. The case is captioned as
Janice Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Accounts Receivable Management Professional Services
LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00033 (W.D. Ky., Jan. 15,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Greg N. Stivers.
The suit alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act involving deceptive and misleading debt
collection letter.
The Defendant is a debt collector company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: 201-282-6501
E-mail: info@steinsakslegal.com
ALLERGAN INC: K.P. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled K.P., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN INC.; ALLERGAN
USA INC.; AND ALLERGAN PLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-09151, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
January 7, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00242 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge
Brian R. Martinotti and referred to Magistrate Joseph A. Dickson.
Allergan, Inc. offers medical devices and over-the-counter products
for ophthalmic, neurological, medical aesthetics, medical
dermatology, breast aesthetics, obesity intervention, and
urological diseases. Allergan serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Shawn Staples, Esq.
230 Westcott St., Suite 120
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: (713) 980-4381
Facsimile: (713) 980-1179
AMAZON.COM: Rober Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
James Rober, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and MICHAEL D. DEAL, Case No.
20-0131 (Mass. Cmmw., Feb. 3, 2020), is brought to seek relief for
the Defendants' violations of state wage and hour laws by failing
to pay their employees earned wages on the date of termination, in
violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.
On January 27, 2020, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's
employment. The Defendant also terminated 90 other delivery drivers
on this same date. As of his date of termination, the Plaintiff had
performed 19.37 hours of work for which he had not been
compensated, the Plaintiff states.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and his fellow delivery drivers their earned wages on the
date of their termination. To date, the Defendant owes the
Plaintiff and similarly-situated employees earned wages.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a delivery driver on
July 22, 2019.
Amazon is a retail and distribution company operating in multiple
states, including Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 338-9400
Email: nfo@mass-legal.com
rm@mass-legal.com
sco@mass-legal.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Weiss Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALOMON WEISS on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers V. AMERICAN EXPRESS LEGAL; ALEXANDER FINK, ESQ. AND
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00259 (E.D.N.Y., Jan 15,
2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' illegal practices
concerning collection of debts, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
In November 2019, the Plaintiff received a complaint that was filed
against him on November 19, 2019, in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Rockland. The lawsuit was filed by Defendant
Fink of AEL, on behalf of their client, American Express Company.
Upon receipt of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff mailed out a letter to
AEL disputing the alleged debt. The Plaintiff however, received no
response. On December 18, 2019, the Plaintiff again mailed a letter
of dispute to AEL, also with no response.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants as a matter of
procedural practice and pattern never intend to follow through with
the validation rights they purportedly provide in initial
communications. He adds that the Defendants, when receiving written
disputes as a matter of procedural practice and pattern do not
provide verification and intentionally denied his dispute rights
afforded to him under the FDCPA.
AEL is a debt collector. AMEX is a national bank and the original
creditor to whom the alleged debt was owed.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Telephone: (516) 668-6945
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
ASSETCARE LLC: Murray Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assetcare LLC. The
case is styled as Karmiec Murray, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Assetcare LLC, CF Medical
LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00219 (M.D.,
Fla., Jan. 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Assetcare is a receivables management company that is dedicated
exclusively to medical accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
Zeig Law Firm, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Tel: (754) 217-3084
Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
AUSTRALIA GOV'T: Climate Activists and Lawyers Itching to Sue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cait Kelly, writing for The New Daily, reports that as Australia
experiences the worst bushfire season on record there are growing
calls for a class action against the federal government for the
lacklustre response to climate change.
Emboldened by a recent case in the Netherlands where citizens
successfully mounted a class action against their government for
its failure to act on the climate crisis, there are mounting calls
to do the same here.
One change.org.au petition to rally support for a class action has
received more than 63,000 signatures.
"The government has failed to increase its emissions targets," it
reads. "Failed to increase the renewable energy target and failed
the people of Australia.
"We are now witnessing the effects of the climate emergency first
hand, and still the government sits on its hands."
But mounting a class action against the government over the issue
is "uncharted territory" and highly complicated, said Australian
Lawyers Alliance's Greg Barns.
"There is certainly a strong and compelling moral argument that
government inaction, in the face of uncontradicted expert evidence
warning about the increased risk of number or, and magnitude of
fires, should compel it to pay compensation to those impacted by
the fires," he told The New Daily.
One argument thrown around for a class action is the historical
precedent taken after Black Saturday fires in which 173 people
died.
The defendants, power distributor SP Ausnet and assent manager
Utility Services Group, were forced to pay out a record $495
million to 5000 victims.
Proving the link between a government's response to climate change
and the loss of lives and properties is a lot more difficult, Mr
Barnes said.
"In a legal sense, it is more complex because it has to be shown
that there is a causal link between government inaction and the
damage caused," he said.
"A class action can't be ruled out and needs close analysis from
high-quality lawyers, but class actions in Australia are difficult
to launch let alone for parties to succeed."
In December, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a landmark ruling which
ordered the country's government to reduce emissions by at least 25
per cent, compared with 1990 levels, by the end of 2020.
The reason Australians couldn't follow a similar approach is that
we don't have a bill of rights, said lawyer George Newhouse.
"The critical element that is missing here is that the Dutch are
signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and
Australia has no equivalent to it and our Constitution does not
contain any meaningful human rights or environmental protections,"
Mr Newhouse said.
"That's the main reason why the case is unlikely to be followed."
A class action might be out of the question but climate change
litigation, at least against companies, is on the rise.
Australia has so far had the second-highest number of climate cases
globally after the United States and the nation's financial
regulators have been warning about an increase of litigation for
years now.
On top of that, in 2016 a legal opinion by Noel Hutley QC and
Sebastian Hartford-Davis identified climate change as a material
financial risk to businesses. As a result, Australian company
directors might be legally obliged to consider and report on the
risks.
If not a class action -- what?
The bushfires have put Australia's climate policy under the
spotlight.
In the last few months millions of people have signed petitions
asking governments to do something, said change.org.au's campaign
director, Nic Holas.
"It's been massive. We've had so many petitions started," he said.
"We have had millions of people desperately trying to make change
happen, and what I often say is that people turn to us when they're
being failed by the state and it's no different with this crisis."
One, calling for the federal government to declare a climate
emergency was started by neurologist turned reluctant climate
change activist Dr Kate Ahmad and has more than 200,000
signatures.
"I'm surprised it's not higher," she said. "Studies show more than
60 per cent of Australians want action right now. I wish more
people would sign it, I think we need bigger numbers.
"We need action right now."
Mr Barns said Australian courts had a history of catching up with
new threats.
"I think we are seeing an emerging new area of law around climate
change and the role of civil and criminal law," he said.
"The history of the law in Australia has been that in response to
new and emerging causes of damage to people and property the courts
have been prepared to extend liability and legislators to introduce
laws designed to ensure accountability.
"We would be outraged if government promoted cigarette smoking or
removed mitigation measures -- this is an analogy." [GN]
BATH PLANET OF ARKANSAS: Stafford Files FDCPA Suit in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bath Planet of
Arkansas, LLC. The case is styled as Jeremy Stafford, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. The
Bath Planet of Arkansas, LLC and Chris Cusick, Defendants, Case No.
6:20-cv-06005-RTD (W.D., Ark., Jan. 22, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutes:
Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Bath Planet of Arkansas provides comprehensive bathroom remodeling
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Sanford Law Firm PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
BEAUTY BIOSCIENCES: Kiler Files Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
Beauty Biosciences LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Beauty Biosciences LLC
doing business as: Beautybio.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00342
(E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020).
Beauty Biosciences LLC is a privately held company in Dallas, TX
and is a single location business, categorized under Beauty
Salons.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BOEING COMPANY: Sued by James for Hiding Design Flaws of 737 MAX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip James, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-00761 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's misrepresentations and concealments of design flaws in
BOEING 737 MAX series aircraft.
The lawsuit seeks compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and more
than 2,000 pilots, who relied on BOEING's representations that the
BOEING 737 MAX series aircraft was not only "safe," but that it
offered the "greatest flexibility, reliability and efficiency in
the single-aisle market" and that becoming certified to fly the MAX
would be an excellent career choice.
The Plaintiff says when he decided to qualify to fly the MAX, he
relied on BOEING's many representations and its consistent and
deliberate concealment of the MAX's many design flaws--including
but not limited to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation
System (the "MCAS"). This critical information was available only
to BOEING, so the Plaintiff was required to place his complete
trust in BOEING regarding the MAX's airworthiness, as well as his
ability to manage potential inflight problems when operating the
MAX.
When BOEING's misrepresentations and concealments were finally
discovered, the MAX was grounded and the Plaintiff suffered
economic damages, including lost wages, reduced flying time,
termination, and retraining costs, according to the complaint. But
for BOEING's concealment of the design flaws, the MAX would never
have been certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (the
"FAA") and Plaintiff would never have committed his career to
flying the MAX.
BOEING--and BOEING alone--caused his damages and must be held
accountable, the Plaintiff contends. For the reasons, the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, requests entry of a judgment against BOEING in an amount
that will make the members of the proposed classes whole, as well
as deter BOEING and other manufacturers from prioritizing corporate
profits over human life.
Plaintiff is an Australian citizen, who was employed to fly
internationally for Samoa Airways, the flag carrier for Samoa and
has been a commercial pilot for almost 20 years and has previously
flown almost exclusively BOEING aircraft.
BOEING designs, manufactures and markets the MAX airplane.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq.
PMJ PLLC
100 South State Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 255-7976
Email: pmj@patjonespllc.com
smb@patjonespllc.com
- and -
Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq.
Karina D. Galliford, Esq.
IALPG PTY LTD (T/AS INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE LAW
& POLICY GROUP)
ID, 7/139 Junction Road
Clayfield, Queensland, Australia 4011
Phone: +61 7 3040 1099
Email: jwheeler@ialpg.com
kgalliford@ialpg.com
BP EXPLORATION: Gets Summary Judgment Granted in Escobar Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GUILLERMO ESCOBAR, Plaintiff, v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "E" (2),
Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-9170 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie Morgan
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants BP
Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Co.
The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to harmful
substances and chemicals after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Plaintiff Escobar alleges that during the Deepwater Horizon
incident, he was employed by Industrial Labor and Equipment
Services to perform response activities. During this work, he
allegedly was exposed to oil, dispersants, and other harmful
chemicals. He said he was diagnosed on Feb. 28, 2013 with chronic
conjunctivitis, and other chronic conditions related to his
exposure such as chronic nasopharyngitis.
On Oct. 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the Back-End Litigation Option
("BELO") action against the Defendants, pursuant to the terms of
the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA") in
In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico, on April 20, 2010 ("MDL 2179"). The Plaintiff alleges his
diagnosed medical conditions complained of were legally and
proximately caused by his exposure to the substances and chemicals
during his response activity efforts.
On Nov. 14, 2019, the Defendants filed the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff failed to file any opposition by
the deadline imposed by the Local Rules for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.
Judge Morgan finds that because the Plaintiff has failed to
designate any expert to testify at trial, he will not be able to
establish his medical diagnoses and causation at trial. The only
summary judgment evidence before the Court relating to the
Plaintiff's medical diagnosis, or an inference of causation, is a
three-page Examination Report from Industrial Medicine Specialists
("IMS") dated Feb. 28, 2013.
Likewise, in the case, the Plaintiff has not retained any expert to
testify on his behalf at trial and he did not disclose to the
Defendants any experts in compliance with the Court's deadline.
Furthermore, the IMS report is not competent summary judgment
evidence. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff belatedly designated his
examiner from IMS as an expert, any such testimony would be
inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. There is no
evidence the IMS examiner conducted his examinations with
information that is critical to proving causation in the lawsuit,
such as knowledge of what chemicals he was exposed to, the
toxicological effect of those chemicals, or the degree of his
exposure. Without this critical information, the IMS examiner's
opinions would be based on speculation and insufficient facts and
data and therefore would be excluded as unreliable.
As a result, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in
their favor on all claims. Accordingly, Judge Morgan granted the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The judgment will be
entered in favor of Defendants, BP Exploration & Production Inc.
and BP America Production Co., and against Escobar.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/aZSF7a from Leagle.com.
Guillermo Escobar, Plaintiff, pro se.
BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune
McEldowney
-- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC,
Devin C. Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Georgia Lee
Lucier -- georgialucier@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP,
Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP
& Scott C. Seiler -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.
BRIA HEALTH SERVICES: Yegger Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Nande Yegger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bria Health Services, LLC and TRN
Milwaukee, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-144 (E.D. Wisc., January
30, 2020) is a collective and class action brought against the
Defendants for their unlawful compensation system in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws (WWPCL).
Plaintiff, who worked as Medical Technician at Defendants' "BRIA of
Trinity Village" location in Wisconsin, alleges that Defendants
operated unlawful compensation system that deprived current and
former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned for
all compensable work performed each workweek.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of herself
and all other similarly-situated current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees of Defendants for purpose of obtaining relief
under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, attorney's fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.
Defendant BRIA Health Services owns, operates, and manages various
locations such as rehabilitation, skilled nursing, and assisted
living facilities, in the States of Wisconsin and Illinois.
Defendant TRN Milwaukee, a skilled nursing facility located at 7500
West Dean Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223, is owned, operated,
and managed by BRIA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
BUCKEYE RV: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dingus Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Dingus & Spenser Sanders, On behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. Buckeye RV, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00612-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 3, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay employees overtime wages, as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered or permitted the
Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks,
entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA. The
Plaintiffs allege they were not fully and properly paid in
accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs also allege they were required to clock out for meal
periods but they did not have a bona fide meal period of 30 minutes
under the wage and hour laws and attendant regulations.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as service technicians and
a Parts Specialist.
The Defendant manufactures recreational vehicles and accompanying
parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
CH ROBINSON: Faces Moore PACA Suit Alleging False Accountings
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MOORE d/b/a MOORE FAMILY FARMS; TERRY LUSK, JASON LUSK, AND
JUSTIN LUSK d/b/a JTJ FARMS; KEVIN RENTZ, AMANDA CALHOUN RENTZ,
DENNIS BRUCE RENTZ, and KARLA JO RENTZ d/b/a RENTZ FAMILY FARMS;
KEVIN COGGINS d/b/a MEK FARMS; BOWLES FARMING COMPANY, INC.;
AGROPECUARIA LOS AMERICANOS S.C. de R.L. de C.V.; PHIL SANDIFER &
SONS FARMS LLC; JMB FARM LLC; POWE FARMS MANAGEMENT LLC; CA
COMERCIAL, S.A.C.; GLOBAL FRESH, S.A.C.; and PEPAS TROPICALES DEL
PERU, S.A.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC. d/b/a C.H. ROBINSON
COMPANY, INC., C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, and ROBINSON FRESH, Case No.
0:20-cv-00252-DSD-TNL (D. Minn., Jan. 16, 2020), stems from the
Defendants' alleged collective unlawful conduct in violation of the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930.
According to the complaint, CHR Worldwide breached its duties owed
to the Plaintiffs under the PACA and its regulations by providing
false and incomplete accountings to the Plaintiffs under the
parties' agreements. Such accountings did not truly and correctly
account for the results of consignment sales and particularly did
not accurately reflect the true freight cost, as well as seed,
pallet rental and other third-party rebates received.
The Plaintiffs contend that CHR Worldwide actively sought to
prevent the discovery of the breach of its duties under PACA
regulations by providing the Plaintiffs with only the false and
incomplete accountings created by Famous accounting software and by
failing to make disclosure to the Plaintiffs and other consignment
growers of the true freight costs and revenues recorded in
third-party truckers' online portal Navisphere and Compass and by
not disclosing seed, pallet rental and other rebates received from
payments made by the Plaintiffs to such third-party suppliers. The
dual set of books maintained by CHR Worldwide facilitated this
practice, the Plaintiffs allege.
CHR Worldwide was founded in 1905 and originally engaged in
sourcing services of buying, selling, and marketing of fresh
fruits, vegetables, and other perishable items. Over time CHR
Worldwide began providing freight transportation services and
logistics solutions to companies of all sizes, in a wide variety of
industries but, in addition to its new transportation and logistics
services, CHR Worldwide continued its original business of sourcing
fresh produce.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig A. Stokes, Esq.
STOKES LAW OFFICE LLP
3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 225
San Antonio, TX 78218
Telephone: (210) 804-0011
Facsimile: (210) 822-2595
E-mail: cstokes@stokeslawofffice.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Rease Sues Over Unsolicited Text Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Rease, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00150
(D. Conn., Feb. 3, 2020), is a brought for legal and equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
sending automated text messages advertisements to the cellular
telephone of the Plaintiff and numerous other individuals across
the country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
All of the subject text messages received by the Plaintiff were
transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without his requisite
prior "express written consent," according to the complaint. And
indeed, the Defendant actually transmitted the text messages at
issue in this case to the Plaintiff and all other putative Class
members in an automated fashion and without human intervention,
with hardware and software that had the capacity to store, produce,
and dial random or sequential numbers and that received and stored
telephone numbers and then dialed such numbers automatically.
Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him whenever he
receives a text message, each unsolicited text message transmitted
by or on behalf of the Defendant to his Number invaded his privacy
and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Florida.
Charter Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications and mass media
company that offers its services to over 26 million customers in 41
states under the "Spectrum" branding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 S. Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06110
Phone: + 1 (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: + 1 (860) 920-5242
Email: ames.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
David W. Hall, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: + 1 (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: + 1 (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
dhall@hedinhall.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: +1 (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: +1 (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
jmarchese@bursor.com
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Suarez Seeks to Certify Ex-Employees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GIOVANNA SUAREZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
SERVICES, LLC, and CALIBURN, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-24573-JLK (S.D.
Fla.), seeks to have this class certified:
Any employee of Defendant Comprehensive Health Services, LLC
or Defendant Caliburn, LLC who was not given a minimum of
60-days advance written notice of termination and whose
employment was terminated as a result of a "mass layoff"
or "plant closing" as defined in 20 C.F.R. Section 639.3 and
29 U.S.C. Section 2101 under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification [WARN] Act of 1988 within the
applicable statutory period.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, appoint the law firm of Florin Gray Bouzas Owens,
LLC as class counsel and authorize notice to all class members.
Comprehensive is a for-profit corporation that contracted with the
United States to operate a shelter in Homestead, Florida, that
housed unaccompanied minor children arriving to the United States
from Central America (the Facility).
Comprehensive terminated the Plaintiff and hundreds of similarly
situated employees on or within 30 days of November 1, 2019. The
termination was caused by a mass layoff or plant closing at the
Facility. However, Comprehensive neither provided her and the
other class members at least 60-days' advance written notice of
their termination, nor paid or provided benefits to them during the
60-day period, as required by the WARN Act, the Plaintiff
alleges.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Scott L. Terry, Esq.
FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
scott@fgbolaw.com
CONFI-CHEK INC: Garza FCRA Suit Moved From E.D. Cal. to S.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as David Garza, Naser Alzer,
Margarita Hernandez, Kimberly Kennedy, Amandeep Singh, and Samah
Haider, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated v.
Confi-Chek, Inc.; Peoplefinders.com; Enformion, Inc.; and Advanced
Background Checks, Case No. 2:18-cv-01968 (Filed July 16, 2018),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Houston) on Jan. 16, 2020.
The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00175 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Confi-Chek Inc. provides public record and investigative
information services. PeopleFinders.com is a public records
business located in Sacramento, California. Enformion Inc was
founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes providing
computer processing and data preparation services. Founded in 1992,
Advanced Background Check, Inc. is a professional, full-service
pre-employment screening and public records retrieval firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephanie R. Tatar,Esq.
TATAR LAW FIRM APC
3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 744-1146
Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
- and -
Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
- and -
William David George, Esq.
BAKER WOTRING LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 980-6513
Facsimile: (713) 980-1701
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher Lee, Esq.
Christopher J. Truxler, Esq.
Eric E. Suits, Esq.
John Drury, Esq.
Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
Selyn Hong, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-1589
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
- and -
Joshua Heath Escovedo, Esq.
WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 558-6181
Facsimile: (916) 446-1611
CUSTOM TRUSS: Nunez Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNABE NUNEZ and ISAI PEREZ v. CUSTOM TRUSS LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and IVA KUTLOVA, Case No. 9:20-cv-80050-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs performed hours of
service for Custom Truss in excess of 40 hours during one or more
workweeks, for which Custom Truss failed to properly pay additional
overtime premiums. Rather than properly pay the Plaintiffs
overtimes wages, as is mandated by law, Custom Truss would have the
Plaintiffs "sign in" on a group time sheet and would pay them their
normal salary, rather than time and one-half.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Custom Truss in the area of general
labor. Mr. Nunez was employed from Oct. 1, 2016, through Jan. 7,
2019, while Mr. Perez was employed from Oct. 1, 2015, through Feb.
14, 2019.
Custom Truss manufactures custom wood trusses and truss systems for
builders and homeowners throughout South Florida and the
Caribbean.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Lustig, Esq.
Robert C. Johnson, Esq.
PIKE & LUSTIG, LLP
1209 N. Olive Ave.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 855-7585
Facsimile: (561) 855-7710
E-mail: pleadings@pikelustig.com
CYTOSPORT INC: Deal in Clay Suit Denied Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAYLA CLAY et al., Plaintiffs, v. CYTOSPORT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.
The class action alleges false advertising involving Muscle Milk
protein shakes and powders. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the case. The
Plaintiffs propose to amend the class definitions for settlement
purposes to encompasses all persons in the United States (including
its states, districts or territories) who purchased specified
products during a certain period of time. The proposed class
definitions could therefore encompass purchasers other than
consumers.
According to the operative complaint, the purpose of the action is
to enforce consumer protection laws. A class action was certified
on this basis, and all class representatives are consumers.
However, Judge Lorenz finds that neither the proposed settlement
nor the proposed notice makes a distinction between consumers, who
purchased the products for personal use, and other purchasers, such
as wholesalers, retailers, and fitness clubs, who purchased them
for resale. The Plaintiffs have not shown that extending the class
definition as proposed meets the requirements of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), or that the settlement on these
terms would be fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e).
The release provision also precludes a broader scope of claims than
allowed by Hesse v. Spring Corporation, the Court opines.
Furthermore, without specific briefing of the legality and
constitutionality of the provision, the Court is not inclined to
approve a settlement enjoining the class members from "assisting
others" in filing claims against the Defendant.
The Court next finds that the proposed notice program is
insufficiently presented for the Court to evaluate whether its
distribution and content meet the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2),
(e)(1) and due process. The proposed Class Administrator, Angeion
Group, proposes an advertising campaign consisting of "targeted
internet banner notice," print publication notice in People
Magazine and Sports Illustrated, sponsored notice on two
class-action related websites (www.topclassactions.com and
www.classaction.org), a dedicated settlement website for the action
and a toll-free phone line. Only the proposed long-form notice,
which presumably will only be posted on the dedicated settlement
website, has been provided for review.
In addition to the lack of specificity, the proposed notice raises
two questions, the Court continues. First, in the consumer class
action context, notice may be posted in places frequented by the
class members or through third parties, for example retailers.
Second, neither the Plaintiffs nor the Class Administrator explain
why Sports Illustrated was selected for publication notice, but an
appropriate women's' interest publication was not. In addition to
the circulation numbers, the selection of publications should be
justified in terms of probability of reaching the class members.
The proposed notice provides for claim submission by mail or online
by filling out an appropriate form, which is to be included in the
notice. On the other hand, it appears that requests for exclusion
may only be submitted by mail. It also appears that the proposed
notice will not include an exclusion form. The Court is not
inclined to approve a settlement where submitting a notice of
exclusion is more onerous than submitting a claim.
The procedure for objecting to the settlement is not adequately
explained to the class members and is made unduly onerous, the
Court adds. The Court will not approve a proposed notice which
restricts objections beyond what is required by Rule 23(e)(5). The
proposed notice also must make clear that making an objection does
not preclude a class member from submitting a claim.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lorenz denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary settlement approval without prejudice to
re-filing after curing the foregoing defects.
For guidance regarding class notice, claim processing, objections,
exclusions, and final settlement approval briefing, the parties may
refer to Dashnaw et al. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., case no.
17cv159-L-JLB.
Finally, with any renewed motion, the Plaintiffs are requested to
email to the Court's efile address editable Word versions of the
proposed class notice materials, including the claim form and
exclusion form.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/mG95nS from Leagle.com.
Chayla Clay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino --
amarino@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice,
Jason J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz
PC, pro hac vice, Nick Suciu, III, Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC,
pro
hac vice, Trenton R. Kashima -- trk@classactionlaw.com --
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP & Jeffrey R. Krinsk --
jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein and Krinsk.
Erica Ehrlichman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Logan Reichert, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy L.
Marino, Marino Law, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers
Schwartz PC, pro hac vice, Trenton R. Kashima, Finkelstein &
Krinsk, LLP & Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Finkelstein and Krinsk.
Chris Roman, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jason J.
Thompson, Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice & Trenton R. Kashima,
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP.
Cytosport, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Aaron D. Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Christine R.M. Kain --
christine.kain@faegrebd.com -- Faegre & Benson LLP, pro hac vice,
David P. Burke -- dburke@neildymott.com -- Neil Dymott Frank
McFall
& Trexler, Sarah Lynn Brew -- sarah.brew@faegrebd.com -- Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Tyler A. Young --
tyler.young@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice
& Matthew I. Kaplan -- matthew.kaplan@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis & West LLP.
DAY & ZIMMERMANN: Court Denies Recusal Motion in Waters Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, John Waters, Plaintiff, v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-11585-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for
recusal.
The case is a putative class action which arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Day & Zimmerman has failed to pay overtime wages in violation of
the law.
Pending before the Court are the Defendant's motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and motion to stay. The Plaintiff has also
filed a motion to disqualify and asks the judicial officer assigned
to the session of the Court to recuse himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 455.
Before the Court can consider the other pending motions, it must
address the Plaintiff's motion for recusal. The Plaintiff states
that one of his several attorneys, Attorney Gordon, has represented
a party in an unspecified, separate and confidential matter
concerning "Slade Gorton & Company Inc." The judicial officer does
have a relationship with Slade Gorton & Co., Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation ("SG & Co."), and is recused from matters involving its
retained counsel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
Judge Gorton finds that the Plaintiff provides no material
information, however, about the matter in question. Nor does
Plaintiff offer any factual basis to support his contention that
the impartiality of the judicial officer might reasonably be
questioned.
Because the Plaintiff has not as yet provided any colorable reason
for the assigned judicial officer to recuse himself, Judge Gorton
denied the Plaintiff's motion to disqualify, without prejudice. If
Plaintiff chooses to file an amended motion, he is directed to
provide more relevant information about the alleged grounds for
recusal, including but not limited to: (1) the particular SG & Co.
matter in question; (2) the parties to the dispute; (3) the
involvement of Attorney Gordon and whether his client is adverse to
SG & Co.; (4) the basis for the claim that the matter is
confidential; and (5) the current status of the matter.
If there are legitimate reasons for doing so, the Plaintiff may
file confidential material related to his renewed motion under
seal, with full disclosure to defendant, but the Plaintiff's
request to set a discovery schedule for the counsel to seek
confidentiality waivers will be denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/qJzmp4 from Leagle.com.
John Waters, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Michael Josephson --
mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Philip J. Gordon -- pgordon@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law
Group, Richard J. Burch -- rburch@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner
Burch PLLC, pro hac vice & Richard M. Schreiber --
rschreiber@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac
vice.
Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keri L.
Engelman -- keri.engelman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Michael J. Puma -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Endodontics Antitrust Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endodontics of New Mexico, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00798 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2020), arises from a
contract, combination, or conspiracy among the Defendants and their
co-conspirators to allocate territories of operation within the
United States and its territories, in violation of the Sherman Act
and the New Mexico Antitrust Act.
The Defendants are DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DeltaUSA; DELTA
DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION; ARIZONA DENTAL INSURANCE SERVICE, INC.;
DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF ARKANSAS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA;
DELTA DENTAL OF COLORADO; DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE, INC.; DELTA
DENTAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA
DENTAL PLAN OF IDAHO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA DENTAL
PLAN OF INDIANA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF
KANSAS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY, INC.; MAINE DENTAL SERVICE
CORP.; DENTAL SERVICE OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
MICHIGAN, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF
MISSOURI; DELTA DENTAL OF NEBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY, INC.; DELTA DENTAL
PLAN OF NEW MEXICO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK, INC.; DELTA
DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OHIO, INC.; DELTA
DENTAL PLAN OF OKLAHOMA; OREGON DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL OF
PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL OF PUERTO RICO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF
RHODE ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF
TENNESSEE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF VERMONT, INC.; DELTA DENTAL
OF VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WEST
VIRGINIA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN; AND DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
WYOMING.
The Plaintiff is a New Mexico dental practice that accepts Delta
Dental insurance plans and provides services to patients insured by
Delta Dental in return for reimbursements from Delta Dental. As
dental insurance companies, the Delta Dental State Insurers
contract with dental practices, including the Plaintiff and members
of the proposed classes, for rates at which the Delta Dental State
Insurers agree to reimburse dental practices for dental goods and
services provided to patients with Delta Dental insurance plans.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in the antitrust
scheme in order to suppress compensation paid by the Defendants to
the Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes at rates that are
below levels that would prevail in a competitive marketplace to
dentists, who are members of the Delta Dental provider network.
According to the complaint, although the Delta Dental State
Insurers are independent companies, all are members, or affiliates
of members, of the Delta Dental Plans Association. The Defendants
facilitated the alleged conspiracy through the Delta Dental Plans
Association, including by requiring each Delta Dental State Insurer
to enter into uniform contracts with the Delta Dental Plans
Association. These contracts restrict each Delta Dental State
Insurer to an assigned territory, prevent Delta Dental State
Insurers from competing with each other, and restrict the Delta
Dental State Insurers from offering dental insurance plans outside
of the Delta Dental brand.
The Delta Dental State Insurers have each secured market power
within their assigned territories, and the Defendants, as a unified
enterprise, have secured market power over the market for dental
insurance across the United States, the Plaintiff contends.
Leveraging their market power, the Defendants agreed to fix the
reimbursement rates at which they reimburse Delta Dental Providers
for services provided to patients with Delta Dental insurance at
below-market levels. Because each of the Delta Dental State
Insurers has market power in its assigned territory, Delta Dental
Providers have no choice but to accept patients with Delta Dental
insurance and accept the anticompetitive reimbursement rates
required by the Delta Dental insurance plan, the Plaintiff
asserts.
The Defendants' anticompetitive practices significantly impacted
the Plaintiff and Class members during the Class Period, according
to the complaint. Unlike other professional industries in which
inflation-adjusted incomes have increased in recent years, average
inflation-adjusted net income for dentists has steadily declined
over the past decade, due in part to the conduct of the Defendants.
Meanwhile, the Defendants' revenues have increased over the same
time period. If Delta Dental State Insurers could compete with each
other in the territories in which other Delta Dental State Insurers
operate, the resulting competition would provide dentists with more
opportunities to receive fairer compensation, the Plaintiff avers.
Endodontics of New Mexico is a dental services provider located in
Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Delta Dental State Insurers are predominantly not-for-profit dental
services corporations that, in the words of the Delta Dental Plan
Association, collectively comprise the "nation's leading provider
of dental insurance."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 750-1265
Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
Richard D. Schwartz, Esq.
Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: ecramer@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
rschwartz@bm.net
jripley@bm.net
DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Deleon Labor Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Myra Deleon and Karla Jimenez, as individuals and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. DENNY'S INC., and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01082 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the
California Labor Code by failing to pay all wages due.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants failed to provide
meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; to provide legally
compliant rest periods; to provide accurate itemized wage
statements upon payment of wages; to pay wages of terminated or
resigned employees; and to reimburse employees for necessary
business expenditures.
According to the complaint, the Company failed to pay to the
Plaintiffs wages for work during meal periods during which they and
the proposed class were ostensibly "duty-free." The Plaintiffs
contend that Denny's was obligated to pay them overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours of work in
one day or 40 hours in one week and double-time compensation for
hours worked in excess of 12 hours in one day.
To the extent that the Defendant required the Plaintiffs to work
the uncompensated, off-the-clock hours on top of a regular shift of
8 hours or more, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs proper
overtime and/or double-time rates for hours worked off-the-clock as
required by law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waitress.
DENNY'S INC. franchises the majority of its approximately 1,600
branded restaurants world-wide but directly owns and operates
numerous locations in California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Edward Kim, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
ekim@mahoney-law.net
DINO PALMIERI: Protective Order Bid in Torres FLSA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAHIANNA TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DINO PALMIERI
SALONS, INC., et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:19 CV 1501 (N.D. Ohio),
Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's
Emergency Motion to Vacate and For Protective Order.
The Defendant filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's Emergency
Motion, and the Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of their
request. The motion asks the Court to (1) vacate its Marginal
Entry Order dated July 31, 2019; (2) issue a protective order
enjoining the Defendants from engaging in improper communications
with putative class members; and, (3) issue an order invalidating
any arbitration agreement previously signed by a putative class
member, which would waive the member's right to participate in the
collective action.
The parties agree that the Defendants communicated with the
putative class members by email, and solicited employees to enter
into an arbitration agreement that would waive any right to bring
or participate in any class, representative or collective action
against [Dino Palmieri] under the FCRA, FLSA or similar state and
local wage and hour claims, including as a class member or opt-in.
Based on the language of the email communications, the arbitration
agreement, and all other available and relevant information, the
Judge Nugent finds that the Plaintiffs' motion should be denied.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' Motion for extension of
time to file response/reply to Motion for Conditional
Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery, and Court-Supervised
Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs contained misrepresented that
the Plaintiffs had not provided the Defendants with a written
demand for damages, which was supposed be one of the potential
triggers for the running of Defendants' response time. The Court
granted the Defendants' request for extension. It has since
accepted and considered the Defendants' opposition, and has ruled
in the Plaintiffs' favor on the Motion for Conditional
Certification. Judge Nugent denied as moot the motion to vacate
the Court's July 31, 2019 ruling.
The lawsuit was filed in State court and removed to the Federal
District Court on July 1, 2019. On Sept. 29, 2019, approximately a
month after filing their Answer to the Complaint, Dino Palmieri
sent stylists an email stating that the Salon is being sued by
former stylists and outlining very generally the claims contained
in the lawsuit. There is no mention in the email that the suit was
filed as a class or collective action.
Contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertions, Judge Nugent finds that the
Defendants communications did mention that a lawsuit by other
employees was pending, and stated that the arbitration agreement
was intended to keep money out of a named Plaintiff, Dena Marinelli
and her attorney's hands, which at least suggests that it would
block the signing employees from joining in the pending suit. A
monetary incentive of $50 was provided and the communications made
clear that signing the agreement was voluntary and no negative
action would occur if an employee chose not to sign. Many of the
statements cited as lies or fraud were statements of opinion rather
than statement of fact. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' brief
misconstrued or misread as false many statements that are facially
truthful.
Although the arbitration agreement could conceivably fall into the
category of communications that may discourage persons from opting
into the class," which are concerning, not all communications of
this type are improper. It is certainly conceivable that an
employer who improperly pressures or misleads employees into
signing agreements that would eliminate their right to participate
in a pending class action could be considered abusive and result in
an injunction, none of the information currently before the Court
indicates that Dino Palmieri's email, or any other communications
between Defendants and their employees to date, rise to this
level.
Finally, as the Plaintiffs have noted, the benefits of an FLSA
collection action depend on employees receiving accurate and timely
notice concerning the pendency of he collective action, so they can
make informed decisions about whether to participate. The
conditional certification issued by the Court on Dec. 18, 2019
makes clear that te notice will go to all employees who fit the
putative class definition whether or not they have signed an
arbitration agreement.
If there are any questions as to the potential preclusive effect of
that agreement on the employees ability to opt-in to the action,
those questions can be raised by the individuals who are actually a
party to those agreements at the appropriate time. The effect and
enforceability of the arbitration agreements is an individualized
issue better suited for disposition at a later time.
For reasons stated, Judge Nugent denied the Plaintiff's Emergency
Motion to Vacate and For Protective Order at this time.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/uPIkVi from
Leagle.com.
Dahianna Torres, Dena Marinelli, Chelsea Amata & Katie Kauble,
Plaintiffs, represented by D. Patrick Kasson --
pkasson@reminger.com -- Reminger Co., Marianne B. Stockett --
mstockett@reminger.com -- Reminger Co., Brian C. Lee --
blee@reminger.com -- Fadel & Beyer & Daniel C. Egger, Reminger Co.
Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc. & Dino Palmieri, Defendants, represented
by Barry Y. Freeman -- bfreeman@bdblaw.com -- Buckingham, Doolittle
& Burroughs.
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Prentice Balks at UnitedHealth Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID A. PRENTICE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN GRIFFIN,
PHILIP R. HAGERMAN, BENJAMIN WOLIN, REGINA BENJAMIN, DAVID C.
DREYER, KENNETH KLEPPER, SHAWN C. TOMASELLO, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, and DENALI MERGER SUB, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00068-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising
from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Diplomat will be
acquired by affiliates of OptumRx, Inc.
On December 9, 2019, Diplomat's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation and Denali
Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Diplomat's
outstanding common stock for $4.00 per share in cash. The Tender
Offer was set to expire on February 7, 2020.
On January 9, 2020, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation
Statement.
The Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses
performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its
fairness opinion.
The Plaintiff is an owner of Diplomat common stock.
Diplomat, through its specialty pharmacy and infusion services,
helps people with complex and chronic health conditions in all
fifty states and Washington, D.C., partnering with payers,
providers, hospitals, and manufacturers. The Individual Defendants
are directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: mdees@holzerlaw.com
DIV HOLDINGS: King Sues Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
------------------------------------------------------------
David King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DIV HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business as "Jardin Premium
Cannabis Dispensary," Case No. 2:20-cv-00231-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., Feb.
3, 2020), is a brought for legal and equitable remedies resulting
from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending automated text
messages advertisements to his cellular telephone and the cellular
telephones of numerous other individuals across the country, in
clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
All of the subject text messages sent to the Plaintiff and the
members of the putative Class constituted "advertisements" or
"telemarketing" messages within the meaning of the TCPA and its
implementing regulations because each such message was aimed at
promoting the commercial availability of the Defendant's products
and services and ultimately selling such products and services, the
Plaintiff alleges. He adds that those text messages were
transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without his requisite
prior "express written consent."
Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him whenever he
receives a text message, each unsolicited text message transmitted
by or on behalf of the Defendant to his Number invaded his privacy
and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Las Vegas, Nevada.
DIV Holdings, LLC is the owner and operator of the "Jardin Premium
Cannabis Dispensary," who offers consumers a wide array of cannabis
products and pot delivery services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. O'Mara, Esq.
THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
311 East Liberty Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
Phone: + 1 (775) 323-1321
Facsimile: + 1 (775) 323-4082
Email: david@omaralaw.net
- and -
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: + 1 (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: + 1 (415) 402-0058
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
DR. DENNIS GROSS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DR. DENNIS GROSS SKINCARE, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00114 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2020) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- https://drdennisgross.com/ -- is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC offers beauty products. The Company
offers online portal for beauty products such as cleanser, sun
protection cream, facial mask, serum, and moisturizer. Dr. Dennis
Gross Skincare serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
DVA CONTRACTING: Violates FLSA/NYLL Over OT Pay, Landaverde Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Landaverde, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. DVA CONTRACTING CORP. d/b/a
DISANO CONSTRUCTION CO., and DNO EQUIPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT INC.
d/b/a DISANO CONSTRUCTION CO., and PIETRO OPPEDISANO, individually,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00563 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants also violated NYLL's requirement that employers
furnish employees with wage statements containing specific
categories of accurate information on each payday, the Plaintiff
asserts.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiff
to work, and he did work, in excess of forty hours per week, or
virtually each week, but the Defendants failed to pay him at the
statutorily required overtime rate of at least one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for any hours that he worked in a
week in excess of forty. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff
a flat daily rate regardless of the total hours that Plaintiff
worked in a day or in a week, and that did not include overtime
premiums for hours that Plaintiff worked in a week over forty.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a construction and
demolition worker in and around New York City.
The Defendants operated a Queens-based construction and demolition
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle E. Mietus, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelly, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 248-5550
Fax: (516) 248-6027
ECOLAB INC: NJ District Court Certifies Class in Charlot FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANTHONY CHARLOT, ALAN REMACHE, JOSE TEJADA,
GREGORY GERMUSKA, GARWYN RICHMOND, MATT RIGGS, CHRISTOPHER HENDLEY,
AND KRISTOFFER WRIGHT, Plaintiffs, v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant, Civ.
No. 18-10528 (KM) (MAH) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The motion for class certification arises from the decision of
Defendant Ecolab to classify certain of its employees as exempt
from the overtime-wage requirements of New Jersey state law. The
employees believe that they are primarily service technicians,
entitled to overtime pay; Ecolab maintains that they are primarily
salespeople.
Ecolab, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Minnesota, sells
commercial sanitation products. It contracts with its customers to
install its equipment and keep it in good working order by
providing routine and emergency maintenance. In return, Ecolab's
clients commit to exclusively purchase Ecolab's chemical cleaning
products.
Plaintiffs Remache and Wright worked in New Jersey for two Ecolab
divisions that sell specialized cleaners and sanitizers to the
hospitality industry. They were employed by Ecolab as dishwasher
repair technicians, positions that Ecolab refers to as route sales
managers and service and sales route managers. RMs install,
maintain, and repair commercial dishwashers as provided in the
lease agreements Ecolab signs with its customers.
The two named New Jersey Plaintiffs are former Ecolab RMs. Remache
worked for Ecolab as an RM in New Jersey from approximately
February 2012 to February 2013. Wright worked for Ecolab as an RM
in New Jersey from approximately 2003 through October 2012.
On Sept. 11, 2012, several RMs sued in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under docket number 2:12-cv-04543.
Those RMs asserted claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") on behalf of Ecolab employees nationwide and also
brought claims under the labor laws of Illinois, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
With respect to the named Plaintiffs only, the parties agreed to
crossmove for summary judgment on the retail or service
establishment exemption of the FLSA. The parties filed their
cross-motions for summary judgment on Dec. 22, 2014. On Sept. 30,
2015, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto granted Ecolab's motion and denied that
of the Plaintiffs. Judge Matsumoto's ruling rested solely on the
FLSA; it did not address the New Jersey Plaintiffs' NJWHL issues.
In April 2016, Ecolab again moved for summary judgment and moved to
strike from the amended complaint the class and collective claims.
On March 29, 2017, Judge Matsumoto granted the motion for summary
judgment on all FLSA claims and on all non-New Jersey state-law
claims. Consequently, only the Plaintiffs' New Jersey state law
claims remained.
On Feb. 17, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to certify the class in the
Eastern District of New York. Judge Matsumoto ordered the parties
to mediate. Mediation failed and on June 13, 2018, the action was
transferred -- still uncertified -- to the District of New Jersey.
The parties have since updated the evidentiary record.
The proposed class consists of anyone who was employed by Ecolab in
New Jersey as a route manager, route sales manager, or service and
sales route manager between Sept. 11, 2010 and the present.
Approximately 106 people meet those criteria.
The Plaintiffs move for class certification and seek to represent a
putative class whose members allegedly suffered uniform harm
because they were all misclassified by Ecolab. Ecolab alleges that
the case is not appropriate for class certification.
After a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
requirements, Judge McNulty finds that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied them all. Therefore, Judge McNulty granted their motion
for class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zFKao5 from Leagle.com.
ANTHONY CHARLOT, ALAN REMACHE, Class Representative, JOSE TEJADA,
GREGORY GERMUSKA, GARWYN RICHMOND, MATT RIGGS, CHRISTOPHER HENDLEY
& KRISTOFFER WRIGHT, Class Representative, Plaintiffs, represented
by GLEN D. SAVITS, GREEN SAVITS, LLC.
ECOLAB INC, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER IVY FISCHER, Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP.
ENDO HEALTH: Mentasta Sues Over Epidemic Addiction to Opioid Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MENTASTA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, Individually and on behalf of a class
of Federally-Recognized Indian tribes similarly
situated within the boundaries of the State of Alaska v. ENDO
HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-op-45024-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, Jan. 16, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, abatement,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and civil penalties against
the Defendants that marketed, promoted, manufactured, and
distributed prescription opioid drugs, which allegedly injured, and
continues to injure, the Mentasta Tribe and its Tribal Citizens
throughout the State of Alaska.
According to the complaint, the Defendants unleashed a devastating
epidemic of prescription and non-prescription opioid abuse into
federally-recognized Indian tribes, their peoples, and their Indian
Lands across the United States, including Alaska. The ravaging
effects that the opioid crisis has had on the babies and children
born to addicted mothers in Indian Country are permanent, with
effects ranging from Non-Abstinence Syndrome babies and children to
utter depletion of foster care and educational resources.
The Defendants include ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JOHNSON
& JOHNSON; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC; ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC, f/k/a ACTAVIS, INC., f/k/a
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS
LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC.; MALLINCKRODT
PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT BRAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
SPECGX LLC; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; McKESSON CORPORATION; HEALTH
MART SYSTEMS, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; WALGREEN CO.;
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES LLC; WALMART INC.; and CVS PHARMACY, INC.
The Defendants are companies, which manufactures, distributes, and
promotes opioid drugs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq.
W. Matthew Pettit, Esq.
FRAZER PLC
30 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 450
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: 615-647-6464
E-mail: roe@frazer.law
trey@frazer.law
mpettit@frazer.law
- and -
Lael Echo-Hawk, Esq.
MTHIRTYSIX, PLLC
700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
Second Floor--The Yard
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: 206-271-0106
E-mail: Lael@MThirtySixPLLC.com
- and -
Little Fawn Boland, Esq.
CEIBA LEGAL
35 Miller Ave. No. 143
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Telephone: 415 684-7670
E-mail: littlefawn@ceibalegal.com
- and -
J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esq.
Mary Jane Bass, Esq.
John R. Zoesch, III, Esq.
BEGGS & LANE, RLLP
501 Commendencia Street
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: 850 432-2451
E-mail: jnd@beggslane.com
mjb@beggslane.com
jrz@beggslane.com
- and -
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
P.O. Box 2129
Fairhope, AL 36533
Telephone: (205) 252-6127
E-mail: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Reveal Chat Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
REVEAL CHAT HOLDCO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, USA
TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (d/b/a Lenddo USA), a
Delaware corporation, CIR.CL, INC., a dissolved Delaware
corporation, and BEEHIVE BIOMETRIC, INC., a dissolved Delaware
corporation v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-363 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated seeking to hold Facebook
accountable for its alleged overtly anticompetitive conduct.
According to the complaint, the company, its executives, and its
engineers worked together over years to execute an anticompetitive
scheme. They did so with flagrant disregard for competition, for
Facebook users, or for the law.
Among other things, the Plaintiffs allege, Facebook moved to crush
or co-opt competition that existed on its own platform by
identifying and categorizing potential market threats, then
extinguishing those threats by cutting them off from key
application program interfaces ("APIs") in Facebook's
Platform--functionality that provided social applications with user
data that fueled their growth; and Facebook collected valuable user
data from competing platforms, growing its own mobile footprint and
constraining the growth of rivals.
The Plaintiffs contend that Facebook's users will lack any viable
choices for the services Facebook provides to them in exchange for
their data. Because Facebook can control the amount of user data
and privacy controls that a user of social networks can demand,
other networks could not compete with Facebook simply by increasing
the value they provide to users or increasing their costs of social
data acquisition. The Plaintiffs add that Facebook's market power
and the 'social data barrier to entry' protecting its business
continue to foreclose consumer choice because users lack a
competitive platform to which they can move if they are unsatisfied
with Facebook's demands of them, including the level of privacy
provided to them to obtain their social data.
The Plaintiffs seek trebled damages and injunctive relief under the
federal antitrust laws to remedy Facebook's brazen play for
dominance, and to stop the Company from further solidifying its
unlawful monopoly, barrier to entry, and market power.
Reveal Chat is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Bainbridge Island, Washington. LikeBright was founded in 2011
and launched the dating site LikeBright.com that same year. Lenddo
is a market leader in alternative credit scoring and identity
verification, allowing individuals and small enterprises in
emerging markets to leverage their digital footprints, including
social media data, to unlock access to financial and credit
services to which they might not have access through traditional
means.
Cir.cl was founded in 2013 and designed an online platform for
individuals and communities to manage peer-to-peer marketplace
transactions, with the goal of allowing real-time integration of
users' various online communities. Beehive was founded in 2013 and
designed an identity verification system drawing heavily on social
media data through a trademarked and proprietary Social
Authentication Technology.
Founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook is a social media
company that provides online services to two billion users around
the world.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
Michael Pomerantz, Esq.
David L. Hecht, Esq.
Adam C. Ludemann, Esq.
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
277 Park Ave., 45th Floor
New York, NY 10172
Telephone: (212) 484-9866
E-mail: yavar@piercebainbridge.com
mpomerantz@piercebainbridge.com
dhecht@piercebainbridge.com
aludemann@piercebainbridge.com
bdunne@piercebainbridge.com
FCA US: Trial Court Lifts Victoria Suit Stay, Sets Pretrial Dates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1617-GPC (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California has issued an order lifting the stay imposed
on the case on Nov. 6, 2019 and setting pretrial dates.
On Dec. 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
denied the Defendant's petition for permission to appeal the
District Court's order granting class action certification. The
District Court lifts the stay imposed on the case on Nov. 6, 2019.
Accordingly, Judge Curiel ordered that the counsel to comply with
the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3).
Compliance was supposed to be by Jan. 24, 2020. Failure to comply
with the disclosure requirements could result in evidence
preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
Counsel were also to meet and take the action required by Local
Rule 16.1(f)(4) by Jan. 31, 2020. At that meeting, the counsel was
to discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations and agreements
resulting in simplification of the triable issues. The counsel was
to exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to
be used for impeachment. The exhibits shall be prepared in
accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). The counsel shall note
any objections they have to any other parties' Pretrial Disclosures
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3).
The counsel for the Plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the
pretrial order and arranging the meetings of the counsel pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By Feb. 7, 2020, the Plaintiff's
counsel was to provide opposing the counsel with the proposed
pretrial order for review and approval. Opposing counsel must
communicate promptly with the Plaintiff's attorney concerning any
objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both
parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if
any, concerning the order.
The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections
to any other parties' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures
shall be prepared, served and lodged with the assigned district
judge by Feb. 14, 2020, and shall be in the form prescribed in and
comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6).
The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the
Judge Curiel on Feb. 21, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. He will set a trial
date during the pretrial conference. He will also schedule a
motion in limine hearing date during the pretrial conference.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/egajuj from Leagle.com.
Carlos Victorino, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R.
Padgett - Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC,
Mark
Alan Ozzello - mcampbell@murphycampbell.com - Capstone Law, APC,
Robert Kenneth Friedl - robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com -
Capstone Law APC, Tarek H. Zohdy - Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com
- Capstone Law APC & Trisha K. Monesi
-Trisha.Monesi@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law, APC.
Adam Tavitian, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett -
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Jordan L.
Lurie - Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com - Pomerantz LLP, Robert
Kenneth Friedl - robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law
APC & Tarek H. Zohdy - Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone
Law APC.
FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski , 505 N 7th St, St. Louis,
MO 63101, Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101,
pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy , Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N
7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, pro hac vice, Thomas L. Azar, Jr. ,
Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, pro hac
vice, William M. Low , Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP & Edwin Mendelson
Boniske , Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP, 401 West A Street, Suite
2600, San Diego, CA 92101
FEEJAYS LLC: Crosson Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Feejays, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Aretha
Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Feejays, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00344 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020).
Feejays, LLC sells sweatpants apparrel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
FIC AMERICA: Cannon Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CANNON, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIC AMERICA CORP., Defendant, Case No.
2020L000121 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir., Dupage County, January 30,
2020) is a class action brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Plaintiff worked as a machine operator and welder at Defendant's
Carol Steam, Illinois facility from approximately January 12, 2018
to September 2018. Throughout his work with Defendant, Defendant
required Plaintiff and other workers, including direct employees
and temporary staffing agency workers, to scan their fingerprints
by using a biometric time clock system to record their time
worked.
The Biometric Information Privacy Acts prohibits a "private
entity," like Defendant, from capturing or collecting biometric
identifiers or information from an individual unless that private
entity first obtains the individual's written consent or
employment-related release authorizing the private entity to
capture or collect an individual's biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information.
Defendant is an automotive parts manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
zflowerree@flsalaw.com
- and -
David Fish, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
docketing@fishlawfirm.com
FIRST SOLAR: Court Rules on Bids to Bar Testimonies in Smilovits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mark Smilovits, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. First Solar, Inc.;
Michael J. Ahearn; Robert J. Gillette; Mark R. Widmar; Jens
Meyerhoff; James Zhu; Bruce Sohn; and David Eaglesham, Defendants,
Case No. CV12-00555-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.), Judge David G. Campbell of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered rulings
related to the taking of testimonies.
Specifically, Judge Campbell:
(i) denied the Defendants' motion to exclude Valerie
Davisson's testimony;
(ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr.
Marietta-Westberg's Testimony;
(iii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Sivaram's
Testimony;
(iv) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Exclude Regan's Testimony;
(v) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Exclude Reicher's Testimony; and
(vi) denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Dr. Branz's
Testimony.
Defendant First Solar produces photovoltaic solar panel modules.
Its stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange. The
Plaintiffs purchased First Solar stock between April 30, 2008 and
Feb. 28, 2012. The Individual Defendants are First Solar officers
and executives who purchased or sold First Solar stock during the
Class Period while allegedly concealing information from the market
about manufacturing and design defects causing faster power loss in
certain modules.
Steep declines in First Solar's stock price, beginning on July 29,
2010, followed the departure of First Solar's CEO, disappointing
financial results, and the release of quarterly financial
disclosures reporting the product defects. First Solar's stock
fell from nearly $300 per share to less than $50 per share during
the Class Period.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in several acts
of fraud during the Class Period, including concealing the product
defects, misrepresenting the cost and scope of the defects, and
reporting false information on financial statements. They further
allege that when First Solar later disclosed the product defects
and attendant financial liabilities to the market, the stock price
fell, causing economic loss to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5. They claim that the Individual Defendants are
liable for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations as
"controlling persons" under Section 20(a).
The securities fraud class action is set for trial in January 2020.
The parties have filed nine motions to exclude expert testimony
under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The motions are fully briefed. No party
requests oral argument or a Daubert hearing. Judge Campbell
addresses six of the motions. He will address the remaining
motions in a separate order.
The Plaintiffs retained Valerie Davisson, a former securities
analyst, to opine on several issues related to non-public
information First Solar purportedly failed to disclose to investors
and analysts. Davisson was asked to opine about: (1) the role of
securities analysts with respect to publicly traded companies; (2)
the state of the solar panel market and the challenges First Solar
faced during the Class Period; (3) the importance of cost per watt,
efficiency, product quality, product reliability, and warranty to
market participants considering making an investment in First
Solar; and (4) whether and how the allegedly concealed information
would have materially altered analysts' ability to assess First
Solar's stock value.
The Defendants move to exclude all of Davisson's opinions, argiung
that Davisson has no expertise in the solar industry, that she
employs no reliable method in reaching her opinions, that her
testimony would confuse the jury, and that she offers impermissible
legal conclusions about materiality.
Judge Campbell finds that Davisson clearly sets forth the factual
bases for her opinions in her report. The Judge assumes she will
do so in her testimony, and that the Defendants will clarify on
cross-examination any factual assumptions they believe are not
actual opinions. The Judge cannot conclude that the jury will be
confused by Davisson's testimony. The Defendants may object at
trial if they believe Davisson crosses the line into inadmissible
legal conclusions. The Defendants' motion to exclude Davisson's
testimony is denied.
The Defendants offer Dr. Jennifer Marietta-Westberg, a former SEC
official and finance expert, to rebut Davisson's opinions. The
Plaintiffs move to exclude Marietta-Westberg's testimony about
Defendants' risk warnings. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertion,
Dr. Marietta-Westberg's discussion of the risk warnings is not
impermissible "conduit testimony." The cases they cite are
inapposite. The Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr.
Marietta-Westberg's testimony is denied.
The Defendants retained Dr. Varun Sivaram to opine on solar
technology, including the manufacturing processes and performance
of thin-film solar modules, and to respond to certain issues raised
in Davisson's report. Dr. Sivaram offers three primary opinions:
(1) "It would have been extremely difficult for thin-film
manufacturers to have perfectly predicted how thin-film modules
would perform in the field during the Class Period"; (2) "It would
have been extremely difficult and costly to find deficient or
nonperforming modules once they had been deployed in the field
during the Class Period"; and (3) "Reliability problems have been
common across module manufacturers as the solar [photovoltaic]
industry has scaled up rapidly over the last two decades."
The Plaintiffs do not dispute that Dr. Sivaram's academic
background and experience as a solar engineer qualify him to offer
opinions on solar technology. They instead move to exclude his
opinions because they are irrelevant to any issue of disputed fact
and will not assist the jury.
Judge Campbell denied the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr.
Sivaram's testimony. The Judge finds that Dr. Sivaram is qualified
to opine on the solar industry issues he addresses, and the Judge
cannot conclude that his proposed opinions are irrelevant or
unfairly prejudicial. He will rule on objections at trial, when
the context and relevancy of evidence is better understood.
The Plaintiffs retained D. Paul Regan, a certified public
accountant, to opine about whether First Solar complied with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), SEC disclosure
rules, and MD&A principles when accounting for and disclosing the
LPM and heat degradation issues. The Defendants move to exclude
Regan's opinions about SEC disclosure rules, MD&A, and First
Solar's warranty obligations.
Judge Campbell granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to exclude Regan's testimony. The Judge precludes Regan
from testifying at trial about SEC disclosure rules and MD&A.
Regan may not testify that First Solar had a statutory warranty
obligation or an implied warranty obligation. But he may testify
about the GAAP implications of First Solar's express warranties
(which the Defendants do not challenge), its actual practice of
replacing modules that did not yet breach express warranties, or
its own internal conclusions about potential statutory or implied
warranties if those internal conclusions are clear from documents
or testimony. The Defendants may object if they believe Regan
crosses the line into impermissible legal conclusions.
Judge Campbell also granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Reicher's Testimony. The Defendants
retained Dan Reicher, an expert in the renewable energy industry,
to opine on whether and how macroeconomic and industry factors
affected the solar industry during the Class Period. Reicher
offers primary opinions about events during the Class Period. The
Plaintiffs assert that Reicher's opinions are not relevant to any
issue with the possible exception being the element of loss
causation.
Judge Campbell holds that Reicher may testify about his five
primary opinions with respect to the solar industry, and may opine
generally about the effects market forces had on solar companies
and the value of their stock, but he may not offer opinions about
movements in First Solar stock prices. No expert will be permitted
to engage in lengthy factual narratives that are not necessary to
the jury's understanding of their opinions. The Court will seek to
strike the proper balance at trial between allowing experts to
provide some background information and reasonably explain their
opinions in a manner helpful to the jury, and avoiding unnecessary
factual narratives. More detailed rulings are not possible at this
time.
Finally, Judge Campbell denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude
Dr. Branz's Testimony with clarifying conclusions. The Plaintiffs
retained Dr. Howard Branz, a solar technology expert, to rebut
opinions offered by Dr. William Holder, the Defendants' accounting
expert. The Defendants argue that the testimony should be excluded
because it is improper rebuttal evidence.
First, the Court holds that challenging the assumptions of an
expert witness' report is a permissible topic of rebuttal
testimony. Second, a party cannot make an end-run around expert
disclosure obligations by withholding initial expert opinions until
rebuttal disclosures. Third, Dr. Branz will not be excluded
because he is not an accountant. Fourth, the Defendants claim that
the vast majority of Dr. Branz's report is unnecessary because the
Plaintiffs already have an accounting expert, Dr. Regan, to rebut
Dr. Holder. Finally, the Plaintiffs may call Dr. Branz after Dr.
Holder has testified. It will be consistent with his disclosure as
a rebuttal expert, and will enable the Court to rule on whether any
of his testimony is improper rebuttal testimony.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/2rCkkn from Leagle.com.
Mark Smilovits, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett Webster
Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer
Lynn Kroll, Martin & Bonnett PLLC, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, Richard W. Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi LLP & Susan Joan Martin -- info@martinbonnett.com -- Martin
& Bonnett PLLC.
Johnny Hyldmar, Plaintiff, represented by Richard W. Gonnello,
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.
Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S.
Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Daniel S.
Drosman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S. Myers,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Hillary B. Stakem, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jason A. Forge, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jessica Tally Shinnefield, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Richard Hanger, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Luke Brooks, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Marco Janoski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark Solomon,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ting Liu, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Christopher Dennis Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Cody
R. LeJeune, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins,
Robbins Geller rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl J. Alvarado, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jennifer N. Caringal, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Lonnie A. Browne, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Tor Gronborg, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.
British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew S. Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Daniel
S. Drosman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S. Myers,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Hillary B. Stakem, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jason A. Forge, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jessica Tally Shinnefield, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Richard Hanger, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Luke Brooks, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Marco Janoski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Mark Solomon, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Dowd,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ting Liu, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Christopher Dennis Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Cody R. LeJeune, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J.
Robbins, Robbins Geller rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl J. Alvarado,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jennifer N. Caringal, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Lonnie A. Browne, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Tor Gronborg, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.
Maverick Funds, Plaintiff, represented by David Thorpe, Dietrich
Siben Thorpe LLP.
First Solar Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan,
Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn
Maledon PA, Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael T. Reynolds -- mreynolds@cravath.com -- Cravath
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen, Cravath Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca J. Schindel, Cravath Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Eugene G. Illovsky --
eugene@boersch-illovsky.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro hac
vice.
Michael J Ahearn, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn Maledon PA,
Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael
T. Reynolds, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Morgan J.
Cohen, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Rebecca J.
Schindel, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice.
Robert J Gillette, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan,
Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn
Maledon PA, Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael T. Reynolds, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice
& Morgan J. Cohen, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice.
Mark R Widmar, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn Maledon PA,
Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren
M. Rosenberg, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael T.
Reynolds, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Rebecca J.
Schindel, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice.
Jens Meyerhoff, James Zhu, Bruce Sohn & David Eaglesham,
Defendants, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro
hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn Maledon PA, Karin A.
DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M.
Rosenberg, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael T.
Reynolds, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Morgan J.
Cohen, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Rebecca J.
Schindel, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice.
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Rounds Suit Moved From Colo. to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Kenny Wayne Rounds and Randy
Carl Smith, on behalf of themselves and on all others similarly
situated v. Fourpoint Energy LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, Case No. 1:19-cv-02878, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on Jan.
15, 2020.
The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00052-SLP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Scott L. Palk.
FourPoint Energy is a private oil and gas exploration and
production company founded by the leadership team of Cordillera
Energy Partners following the sale to Apache Corporation in 2012.
Founded in 2013, this fourth enterprise is centered around the same
acquire/exploit strategy.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Margaret E. Robertson, Esq.
Ryan K Wilson, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM
431 W Main St., Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
E-mail: Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com
maggie.robertson@lanierlawfirm.com
ryan.wilson@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Charles V. Knutter, Esq.
David R. Gleason, Esq.
MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON PC
211 N Robinson Ave., Suite 1350
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-3357
Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
E-mail: cknutter@moricoli.com
dgleason@moricoli.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Craig L. Stahl, Esq.
Jeffrey T. Kuehnle, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
10001 Woodloch Forest, Suite 200
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Telephone: (713) 220-4834
Facsimile: (713) 220-4815
E-mail: craigstahl@andrewskurth.com
JeffreyKuehnle@andrewskurth.com
FRIENDS HEALTH CARE: Faces Kim ADA Suit Over Unlawful Discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jong Hoon Kim, on behalf of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
v. Friends Health Care Team, Inc. doing business as and also known
as Friends Health Care or Friends Health, Rebecca T. CHO, and Dae
J. LEE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00110 (E.D. Va., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants intentionally and willfully violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by ADA Amendments Act
of 2008, in connection with the Plaintiff's unlawful discharge.
On March 28, 2019, the Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo a bypass
surgery without opening the chest. When the Plaintiff went to the
hospital for the surgery, the doctor determined that the Plaintiff
had to undergo an open heart surgery. The doctor told the Plaintiff
that he would be unable to drive and lift heavy items at least for
the next three weeks after the surgery.
On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff met Defendant Dae J. Lee and told
him that the Plaintiff had to undergo an open heart surgery and as
a result he would not be able to drive and lift heavy items at
least for the next three weeks after the surgery and he would need
to take days off about three weeks after the surgery. As soon as
hearing what the Plaintiff told him, Lee told the Plaintiff that
"then you should quit" and fired the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff told
Lee that firing him like that was not right and asked Lee to
withdraw his decision of discharging the Plaintiff. Lee refused to
do so.
On the same day, according to the complaint, the Plaintiff met
Defendant Rebecca T. Cho and told her what happened with Lee and
asked her to override Lee's decision of discharging the Plaintiff.
Cho refused to do so. At no time has Lee or Cho suggested that the
Plaintiff had any performance problems, nor did he. Lee or Cho
failed to ever engage in any discussions with the Plaintiff for a
reasonable accommodation for the Plaintiff's disability from the
open heart surgery.
After the surgery, the Plaintiff was hospitalized for one week.
After released, he was emotionally distressed from the unlawful
discharge, and suffered from hypertension and had to be admitted at
the hospital again for three extra days. To This day, the Plaintiff
continues to suffer from the residual effects of his disability. He
cannot lift heavy items, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Jong Hoon Kim worked for Friends Health from October 20,
2018, until April 2, 2019, as a helper.
Friends Health was in the business of senior day care center
services and senior home care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
RYU & RYU, PLC
301 Maple Ave. West, Suite 620
Vienna, VA 22180
GARCIA DELIVERS: Villatoro Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Installers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ulises Villatoro, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Garcia Delivers Corp. (DBA Garcia Delivers)
and Edwin Garcia (Individually), Case No. 2:20-cv-00255-SJF-AYS
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020), seeks to recover under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay and unlawful deductions for the Plaintiff and
similarly situated co-workers, who have been employed by the
Defendants as Installers for Garcia Delivery.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly work for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime
compensation for any of the hours that he worked.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants, who were
ostensibly employed as Installer of Stoves, Microwaves, Dishwashers
and Refrigerators.
Garcia Delivers is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Merrick, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/
GENOVA PRODUCTS: Green Seeks Wages and Benefits Under WARN Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marie "Angie" Green, Tina Myers, Brandon Perowski, David Kofron,
Seth Rottgering, Ashley Conner, Nathaniel Perkins, James
Richardson, Keisha Richardson, Keith, Naufel, Darryl Gilbert, Tracy
Atkinson, Maria Anderson, Kelsie Travis, Stanley Williams, Todd N.
Lawler, Caitlyn Parrish, David L. McClain, Buffy Timmons, Holly
Hiett, Andrew Hall, Ashley Jordan-Kozloski, Linda Stokes, Joshua
Priddy and Paul Kitt, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. GENOVA PRODUCTS, INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-00025-TBR (W.D. Ky., Feb. 3, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60
calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant permanently laid the
Plaintiffs off without advance notice and, later, formally
terminated them. The Plaintiffs earned regular compensation and
other employee benefits and were damaged by the Defendant's
violation of the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide
them and other similarly situated former employees at least sixty
days advance notice of their employment losses, as required by the
WARN Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant at its Paducah,
Kentucky facility.
The Defendant advertises itself on its Web site as one of the
world's largest manufacturers of vinyl plumbing products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Wes Sullenger, Esq.
SULLENGER LAW OFFICE, PLLC
629 Washington Street
Paducah, KY 42003
Voice: (270) 443-9401
Email: wes@sullengerfirm.com
GLOW CONCEPT: Bunting Alleges Violation of ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Glow Concept Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Glow Concept Inc.,
doing business as: Winky Lux, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00340
(E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020).
Glow Concept Inc., doing business as Winky Lux, retails personal
care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
GREAT WASTE: Marin Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario R. Marin, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. GREAT WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-20463-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2020), is brought to recover
money damages for retaliation and unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff regularly worked overtime hours (hours in excess of
40) and he was not paid for all his overtime hours worked, at the
rate of time and one-half of his regular rate of pay for all of the
overtime worked, according to the complaint. The Defendant also has
a custom and practice of deducting meal-period hours automatically,
regardless of the fact that the Plaintiff did not take lunch
breaks.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a waste disposal
driver.
GREAT WASTE SERVICES is a Florida Corporation that owns and
operates a sanitation or trash collection and recycling business in
Broward and Dade County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GROGAN LAW GROUP: Chelminski Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Grogan Law Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Hennie Chelminski, individually, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. The
Grogan Law Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00920 (D., N.J.,
Jan. 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Grogan Law Group, LLC is a lawfirm located at 17 Prospect St,
Morristown, NJ 07960-6862.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Zemel Law LLC
1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Tel: (862) 227-3106
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
HANKOOK TIRE: Dionysius Sues over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW DIONYSIUS, individually, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANKOOK TIRE
MANUFACTURING TENNESSEE, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00091
(M.D. Tenn., Nashville Div., January 31, 2020) is a purported
opt-in collective action filed against Defendant for its alleged
failure to pay overtime and off-the-clock work in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Dionysius was employed as an hourly-paid maintenance employee at
the Defendant's Clarksville, Tennessee facility during the
three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the
collective action complaint.
Hankook Tire Manufacturing Tennessee, LP is a Tennessee Corporation
with its principal address and corporate headquarters located at
2950 International Boulevard, Clarksville, Tennessee 37040.
Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid (protective
safety geared) employees of Defendant complained that Defendant did
not pay them proper compensation of the overtime hours they have
worked in excess of their 40 hours per week regular work schedule
and other off-the-clock work. Thus, this case is brought by
Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages owed. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina Parsley, Esq.
PONCE LAW
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com
HART GROUP: Faces Rosales Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON ROSALES, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. THE HART GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:20-at-00061 (E.D. Cal.,
Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Hart Group often places text
message calls to persons without having the necessary prior express
written consent to do so in violation of the TCPA. Hart Group
places these unsolicited text message calls using equipment that
has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers, and to dial
such numbers, without any need for human intervention.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Hart Group's violations caused him
and members of the Class to experience actual harm, included
aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily
accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing text message
calls, as well as the violation of their statutory rights.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant.
Hart Group is a provider of supplemental life and health insurance
benefits for labor unions, credit unions and associations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
HEARTFELT HOME: Lucas Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Lucas, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. HEARTFELT HOME HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00029-SPB (W.D. Pa., Jan. 31, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours in a week for the Defendant but the Defendant failed to pay
overtime premium compensation to her and other hourly employees
when they worked over 40 hours in a week. As one of many examples,
the Plaintiff was credited with working 81 hours during the period
ending September 8, 2019, but was only paid at her straight-time
hourly rate of $12.00 for all work hours, including the 41 overtime
hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly employee
from November 2013 until November 2019.
The Defendant, according to its company website, "has been
providing specialized health care to clients in Erie, Crawford,
Mercer, and Venango Counties since 2002."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
Twining Office Center, Suite 211
715 Twining Road
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
HENLEY PROPANE: Brown Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BROWN, individually and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
HENLEY PROPANE, INC., Edward Henley and Brett Henley, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00007 (E.D. Tenn., Winchester Div.,
January 31, 2020) is an opt-in collective action brought against
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Timothy Brown was employed by Defendants as an
hourly-paid employee and he claimed that Defendants violated the
FLSA by failing to pay him and those similarly situated for all
hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at the rate
of time and one-half their regular rate of pay. Thus, Plaintiff
filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated hourly-paid employees aiming to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages owed to them.
Henley Propane, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation authorized to do
business, and is currently doing business, in the State of
Tennessee with its principal place of business being located at 106
E. Fort Street, Manchester, Tennessee 37355.
Defendant Edward Henley, the owner and founder of Henley Propane,
Inc., exercised operational control over the corporate defendant
and its employees during the statutory period, determined
Plaintiff's rate and method of pay, and made the decision to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members straight time for overtime hours.
Defendant Brett Henley, the manager of Henley Propane, Inc.,
assisted Defendant Edward Henley in determining Plaintiff's rate
and method of pay and in making the decision to pay Plaintiff and
Class Members straight time for overtime hours. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina Parsley, Esq.
PONCE LAW
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com
HUUUGE INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Bid Denial in Wilson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HUUUGE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-36017 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court denial of Huuuge's motion to compel arbitration against
Wilson.
Smartphone applications have a ubiquitous presence in our everyday
lives. The question of first impression for the Court is under
what circumstances the download or use of a mobile application by a
smartphone user establishes constructive notice of the app's terms
and conditions.
Huuuge is the owner and operator of the smartphone app Huuuge
Casino, which allows smartphone users to gamble with chips to play
casino games. Users can gamble either with a limited number of
free chips or with chips purchased through the app. Wilson
downloaded the app from Apple's App Store in early 2017 and played
Huuuge Casino for over a year.
In April 2018, Wilson filed the class action lawsuit, alleging
Huuuge violated Washington gambling and consumer protection laws by
charging users for chips in its app. Huuuge moved to compel
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), alleging
that Wilson was on inquiry notice of its Terms, which include a
binding arbitration provision that prohibits class actions.
Huuuge does not require users to affirmatively acknowledge or agree
to the Terms before downloading or while using the app. Users can
access Huuuge's Terms in two ways: (1) reading the Terms before
downloading the app, although the user is not required to do so; or
(2) viewing the Terms during game play, which is similarly not
necessary to play the game. Either way, the user would need
Sherlock Holmes's instincts to discover the Terms.
Huuuge claims Wilson is bound by the arbitration provision because
Wilson had constructive notice both when he downloaded the app and
during its use. Wilson, however, argues the app's Terms were not
conspicuous when he downloaded the app or during gameplay. The
district court agreed with Wilson and denied Huuuge's motion to
compel arbitration. The district court further found that actual
knowledge was not an issue because Huuuge did not present any
evidence of Wilson's actual knowledge.
The Ninth Circuit holds that although the district court did not
expressly deny Huuuge's discovery request, it implicitly did so in
its reasoning rejecting Huuuge's argument. Whether she review this
issue de novo or for abuse of discretion, the result is the same.
The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court did not err in not
permitting discovery on actual notice before denying the motion to
compel arbitration. Huuuge wanted it both ways -- if it won the
motion to compel, great; if it didn't win, only then did it want
discovery. Although Huuuge had the burden to present evidence of
actual notice, it rolled the dice and chose not to pursue
additional discovery at the outset, instead moving to stay
discovery pending the motion to compel arbitration. Huuuge, as
operator of the app, undoubtedly had at least some information
probative of actual notice in its control, but it offered nothing
on the actual notice issue. Finally, Huuuge waived its discovery
request as it was insufficiently raised in a two-line footnote in a
reply brief. Put simply, Huuuge's discovery request was too
little, too late, the Ninth Circuit says.
The Ninth Circuit now turns to the issue of constructive notice.
The Ninth Circuit finds that uuuge's agreement is unambiguously a
browsewrap agreement. Wilson was not required to assent to
Huuuge's Terms before downloading or using the app -- or at any
point at all. Huuuge did not notify users that the app had terms
and conditions, let alone put them in a place the user would
necessarily see. Instead, a user would need to seek out or stumble
upon Huuuge's Terms, either by scrolling through multiple screens
of text before downloading the app or clicking the settings menu
within the app during gameplay.
In the absence of actual knowledge, a reasonably prudent user must
be on constructive notice of the terms of the contract for a
browsewrap agreement to be valid. The burden similarly falls on
app operators. Users are put on constructive notice based on the
conspicuousness and placement of the terms and conditions, as well
as the content and overall design of the app. Even where the terms
are accessible via a conspicuous hyperlink in close proximity to a
button necessary to the function of the website, courts have
declined to enforce such agreements. Huuuge's app is littered with
these flaws.
Huuuge argues Wilson's repeated use of the app places him on
constructive notice since it was likely he would stumble upon the
Terms during that time period. However, just as there is no reason
to assume that users will scroll down to subsequent screens simply
because screens are there, there is no reason to assume the users
will click on the settings menu simply because it exists. The user
can play the game unencumbered by any of the settings. Nothing
points the user to the settings tab and nowhere does the user
encounter a click box or other notification before proceeding.
Only curiosity or dumb luck might bring a user to discover the
Terms.
Instead of requiring a user to affirmatively assent, Huuuge chose
to gamble on whether its users would have notice of its Terms. The
odds are not in its favor. Wilson did not have constructive notice
of the Terms, and thus is not bound by Huuuge's arbitration clause
in the Terms.
The Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's denial of
Huuuge's motion to compel arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Dec. 20, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Mwa9fG from Leagle.com.
Sean Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cecily C. Shiel --
cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Janissa Ann Strabuk
-- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Benjamin H.
Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice,
Eve-Lynn Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, J.
Eli Wade-Scott -- ewadescott@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac
vice, Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON
PC,
pro hac vice & Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro
hac vice.
HUUUGE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Cyrus E. Ansari -- cyrusansari@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE,
Jaime Drozd Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE &
Stuart R. Dunwoody -- stuartdunwoody@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE.
INFINITY INSURANCE: Gets Summary Judgment Upheld in Hallums Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHELITHEA HALLUMS and SAMUEL CASTILLO,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INFINITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-12138 (11th Cir.), Judge
Beverly B. Martin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed a trial court order granting summary judgment to
the Defendants.
Ms. Hallums and Mr. Castillo purchased vehicle insurance which they
say is illusory because it insures no risk for which the insured
can be liable. They brought a putative class action seeking
damages and a declaration that the insurance product is not valid.
Infinity is an Indiana corporation that sells insurance products
throughout Florida. Its principal place of business is in Alabama.
Infinity, directly and through subsidiaries, provides personal
automobile insurance, primarily targeted to "urban" and Hispanic
drivers in Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas. Infinity Auto
Insurance Co. -- an Ohio corporation that sells insurance products
throughout Florida, with its principal place of business in Alabama
-- is one such subsidiary.
Ms. Hallums, a citizen of Florida, leased a 2016 BMW X6 from South
Motors BMW, which assigned the lease to Financial Services Vehicle
Trust. Mr. Castillo leased a 2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport from
Land Rover North Dade, LLC, which assigned the lease to JP Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A. Both leases required the plaintiffs to maintain
liability insurance with limits of $100,000 for bodily injuries per
person, $300,000 for bodily injuries per accident, and $50,000 for
property damage per accident (commonly referred to as "100/300/50
limits"). Failure to comply with this requirement could result in
termination of the lease and repossession of the automobile.
Through independent insurance agents, Ms. Hallums and Mr. Castillo
separately applied for insurance with Infinity in 2016.
Ms. Hallums filed her complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Oct. 27, 2016. She alleged the
Endorsement is illusory because it only provides coverage for
vicarious liability against lessors, and that liability is
foreclosed by the Graves Amendment. Infinity moved to dismiss the
complaint, but the District Court denied that motion on Sept. 22,
2017.
Following discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment and the
Plaintiffs moved for class certification. On April 20, 2018, the
District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
and granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Infinity. The
District Court held that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring
their claims, but their claims ultimately fail because the
Endorsement is not limited to coverage for pure vicarious liability
claims (and even if it were, a duty to defend would still exist).
The Plaintiffs timely appealed.
Infinity offers three separate grounds by which the Eleventh
Circuit may affirm the District Court ruling: (1) The Endorsement
is not illusory because it provides coverage for more than just
vicarious liability; (2) The Endorsement is not illusory because it
imposes on Infinity a duty to defend lessors from claims of
vicarious liability; and (3) The Plaintiffs' action is barred by
the filed rate doctrine.
The Eleventh Circuit chooses door number two. The Eleventh Circuit
finds that the policy imposes a duty to defend on Infinity.
Because the Endorsement is part of the insurance contract, and
because the Endorsement covers claims of vicarious liability
against lessors, a complaint alleging vicarious liability against a
lessor would fairly and potentially fall within the policy
coverage.
Infinity has these duties regardless of whether lawsuits alleging
acts within the Endorsement's scope are likely -- or even able --
to succeed in court. And the record shows that lessors continue to
be sued under vicarious liability, even after the Graves Amendment.
Even if this were a close case, any doubt concerning an insurer's
duty to defend must be resolved in favor of coverage.
Because the Endorsement imposes on Infinity a duty to defend
lessors from claims of vicarious liability, the Endorsement is not
illusory, the Eleventh Circuit opines. The Eleventh Circuit need
not reach the other grounds put forward by Infinity.
A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/dXR9bR from Leagle.com.
Eric A. Hernandez -- eric@whlmlegal.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Todd L. Wallen -- twallen@shb.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John Thomas Richie -- trichie@bradley.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Michael R. Pennington -- mpennington@bradley.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Raoul G. Cantero -- rcantero@whitecase.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Arturo Carlos Martinez -- arturo@whlmlegal.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Ramon Alberto Abadin -- ramon.abadin@sedgwicklaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Christopher Swift-Perez -- cswift-perez@whitecase.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Jermaine Lee -- jlee@whlmlegal.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Diana Nicole Evans -- dnevans@bradley.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
David DeSales Switzler -- dswitzler@stroock.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
INFORMATICA LLC: Flynn FLSA Suit Moved From Calif. to W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Joseph Flynn, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Informatica, LLC,
Case No. 4:19-cv-06192-HSG (Filed Sept. 30, 2019), was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas (Austin) on Jan. 16, 2020.
The Western District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00054-LY to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation Defendant.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff in an inside sales role as a
Business Development Manager working in its Austin, Texas office
from May 2017 to January 2019.
The Defendant is a software company that makes and sells enterprise
software solutions to businesses' information technology
departments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Jay E. Eidsness, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: helland@nka.com
fisher@nka.com
jeidsness@nka.com
- and -
Austin Kaplan, Esq.
KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
406 Sterzing St.
Austin, TX 78704
Telephone: (512) 553-9390
Facsimile: (512) 692-2788
E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Shannon Rea Boyce, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
2049 Century Park East, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-7304
Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Court Affirms FINRA Award in Singh Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARANJIT SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERACTIVE
BROKERS LLC, et al., Defendants, Lead Case Civil No. 2:16cv276
(E.D. Va.), Judge Robert G. Doumar of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division confirmed an
arbitration award under the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (FINRA).
On June 8, 2016, Charanjit and Parbhur Singh and Brar Family
Partnership L.P. ("BFP") filed lawsuits against the Singhs' nephew,
Vikas Brar; his financial advising firm, Brar Capital LLC; and
Interactive Brokers (IB), an online broker-dealer and securities
investment firm. The two lawsuits relate to two IB investment
accounts held by the Plaintiffs: the Singhs' joint account
established in August 2011 and BFP's account established in March
2012. The Singhs named Vikas Brar of Brar Capital LLC as their
designated financial advisor for both accounts.
Under the Amended Complaints, by August 2015, both the Joint
Account and the Partnership Account consisted almost entirely of
options on the VXX, which is an exchange-traded note designed to
expose options positions to the CBOE Volatility Index. On Aug. 20,
2015, the Joint Account was allegedly worth $406,794.04 and the
Partnership Account was allegedly worth $1.8 million.
However, also in August 2015, the stock market plunged, and the
value of the Joint Account dropped to a value of -$409,565.95, with
a margin deficit of approximately $1.2 million, and the value of
the Partnership Account dropped to a value of $651,811.26, with a
margin deficit of approximately $1.79 million. To cover these
significant margin deficits, IB liquidated the positions in both
accounts. After liquidation, both the Joint Account and the
Partnership Account had insufficient funds to satisfy their margin
debts, so IB demanded approximately $461,000 from the Singhs and
$1.72 million from BFP to cover their respective debts.
On Nov. 27, 2015, IB commenced arbitration proceedings against the
Plaintiffs before FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution alleging
breach of contract for failure to pay their account margin debts.
In June 2016, the Plaintiffs commenced the captioned lawsuits,
which the Court consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. On Nov. 30, 2016, on IB's motion, the
Court compelled the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their dispute with IB
pursuant to their binding arbitration agreements and stayed the
instant litigation pending completion of the arbitration.
On April 9, 2019, the FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution issued its
Award in the consolidated matter of the arbitrations between IB and
the Singhs and between IB and BFP. Such Award constitutes the full
and final resolution of the issues submitted by the parties and was
decided after the panel considered the parties' pleadings, the
testimony and evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing, and the
parties' post-hearing submissions. The Award finds the Singhs
liable to IB for unpaid account deficits in the amount of
$461,225.13, plus interest, costs, and $103,279.07 in attorneys'
fees. The Award further finds BFP liable to IB for unpaid account
deficits in the amount of $1,720,983.06, plus interest, costs, and
$240,984.48 in attorneys' fees. The Award also denies in their
entirety all counterclaims filed by the Singhs and BFP in the
arbitration.
On July 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Vacate
or Modify the Arbitration Award. On July 30, 2019, IB filed a
cross motion to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to Section 9
of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate
or Modify Award and IB's Motion to Confirm Award were fully
briefed.
On Oct. 22, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the pending motions.
Based on a procedural development that the Plaintiffs brought to
the Court's attention, the Court ordered further briefing. They
filed their Brief in Response to Court Order on Nov. 6, 2019, and
IB filed a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to
Confirm Arbitral Award. The parties then each filed a reply. The
Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate or Modify Award and IB's Motion to
Confirm Award are now before the Court.
Judge Doumar concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet
their heavy burden of showing any cognizable ground under the FAA
or the common law for the Court to vacate or modify the parties'
arbitration Award. .
The Judge also considered IB's cross Motion to Confirm the Award.
Section 9 of the FAA provides that upon a party's application, a
court must enter an order confirming an arbitration award if: (1)
the parties agreed in the arbitration agreement that judgment may
be entered by the court; (2) the award has not been vacated,
modified, or corrected; and (3) the moving party has requested the
confirmation within one year of the award.
IB's motion meets all of the requirements under FAA Sec. 9, the
Court finds. First, the arbitration agreements between the parties
explicitly state that judgment may be entered on any arbitration
award conducted pursuant to such agreements by any court having
jurisdiction thereof. Second, the Court has denied Plaintiffs'
motion to vacate or modify the Award finding no grounds to grant
such relief. Third, IB has made its request for confirmation
within one year of the Award, which was issued in April 2019.
Accordingly, Judge Doumar (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Vacate or Modify Arbitration Award, and (ii) granted IB's Motion to
Confirm Arbitration Award.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment
consistent with the parties' arbitration award as follows:
a. Judgment in favor of IB and against Plaintiffs Parbhur
and Charanjit Singh in the amount of $461,225.13 plus
interest at the rate of 1% per annum from Aug. 24, 2015,
until the award is paid in full, plus $103,279.07 in
attorneys' fees and $776.89 in costs.
b. Judgment in favor of IB and against Plaintiff BFP in
the amount of $1,720,983.06 plus interest at the rate
of 1% per annum from Aug. 24, 2015, until the award
is paid in full, plus $240,984.48 in attorneys' fees
and $1,812.73 in costs.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/Rgy0hp from Leagle.com.
Charanjit Singh & Parbhur Singh, Plaintiffs, represented by Arthur
Mark Schwartzstein, Arthur M. Schwartzstein, P.C.
Interactive Brokers LLC, Defendant, represented by Cameron Scott
Matheson -- cmatheson@mmlawus.com -- Murphy & McGonigle PC.
Interactive Brokers LLC, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Cameron Scott Matheson, Murphy & McGonigle PC.
Brar Family Partnership L.P., Consolidated Plaintiff, represented
by Arthur Mark Schwartzstein, Arthur M. Schwartzstein, P.C..
KALAMATA RESEARCH: Van Elzen Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VAN ELZEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KALAMATA RESEARCH SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and GLOBAL MARKETING RESEARCH SERVICES, INC., a
Florida corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00072 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 15,
2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited, autodialed text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
On December 22, 2019, the Plaintiff received an autodialed text
message on his cell phone from the Defendants using phone number
877-612-1508. The Plaintiff alleges that he has never given
Kalamata or GMRS consent to send automated text messages to him. He
adds, that unauthorized text message that was sent by Kalamata and
GMRS, harmed him in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion
of privacy, and disturbed his use and enjoyment of his cellular
phone, in addition to the wear and tear.
The Plaintiff seeks to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for
all persons injured by the Defendants'conduct.
Kalamata is a market research company that conducts phone and text
message surveys with consumers. GMRS is a market research company
that deals primarily in political polls and voter contact services
in which GMRS helps politicians and political organizations get
messages out to voters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
KELLY SERVICE: Use of Consumer Report Violates FCRA, Stanley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE STANLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., a Michigan corporation; CENTENE
CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-58-2242 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire
consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and
other prospective, current and former employees and use information
from consumer reports in connection with their hiring process
without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper
authorization in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff, was jointly employed by the Defendants in the State
of California, seeks statutory damages due to the Defendants'
systematic and willful violations of the FCRA.
Kelly Services is an American office staffing company that operates
globally. Centene Corporation is a large publicly traded company
and a multi-line managed care enterprise that serves as a major
intermediary for both government-sponsored and privately insured
health care programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
Farrah Grant, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
farrah@setarehlaw.com
KITTRICH CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Krumm Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINE KRUMM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KITTRICH CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19 CV 182 CDP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine D.
Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri granted in part and denied in part Kittrich's motion to
dismiss.
Kittrich manufactures and sells EcoSMART Insect Repellant. The
repellant consists of a formula of naturally occurring active
ingredients which the Environmental Protection Agency classifies as
"minimum risk pesticides." The repellant comes in a handheld spray
bottle, labelled front and back with information and instructions.
Plaintiff Krumm alleges she purchased a bottle of the repellant for
approximately $6 from a Shop 'n Save retail store in the Summer of
2016. Krumm maintains she "carefully read" the repellant's
labelling before making the purchase, and that she used the
repellant according to its directions and it was ineffective to
repel mosquitos. Consequently, she alleges she would not have
purchased it at all, or would have only bought it for a
"substantially reduced price." Krumm brings six counts against
Kittrich under federal and Missouri state law stemming from the
alleged misrepresentations of the repellant's efficacy.
In Count I, brought under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
("MMPA"), Krumm alleges Kittrich engaged in unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in the manufacture and sale of its repellant.
Krumm brings Count II of her complaint for breach of express
warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"). Count IV
alleges breaches of both an implied warranty of merchantability and
fitness for a particular purpose.
Kittrich seeks to dismiss Krumm's complaint under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). First, Kittrich
contends Krumm lacks standing to sue, thus the Court should dismiss
the case in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In support, Kittrich argues (1) Krumm fails to adequately allege
that she suffered a cognizable injury in fact, and (2) her claim is
moot because of a pre-litigation tender of payment. Second,
Kittrich challenges the factual sufficiency of Krumm's pleadings,
and contends that three of Krumm's six counts should be dismissed
due to various procedural and/or substantive deficiencies.
Finally, Kittrich asserts that the Court should dismiss Krumm's
claims on behalf of the nationwide class for lack of personal
jurisdiction over the out-of-state (i.e. non-Missouri) purchasers.
Judge Perry granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. The Judge granted the
Motion as to Count IV, and denied as to all other grounds.
Among other things, Judge Perry finds that Count IV of Krumm's
complaint alleges breaches of both an implied warranty of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The
disclaimer on the repellant's label explicitly disclaims the
implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose. A reasonable person would have noticed the disclaimer, as
it follows bolded and capitalized text stating LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY. Indeed, Krumm states that she carefully read the
repellant's labeling.
Judge Perry rejects Krumm's strained interpretation of the
disclaimer because there simply cannot be an implied warranty
stated -- implied warranties are inherently not stated at all, as
they are derived by implication or inference from the circumstances
of the transaction. Accordingly, the repellant's conspicuous
disclaimer of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness
bars any claim premised on the repellant's alleged inability to
pass without objection in the trade under the contract description,
no matter where such implied warranty may be drawn from on the
repellant's label. Count IV is therefore dismissed with prejudice,
Judge Perry rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/n0pJju from Leagle.com.
Christine Krumm, individually and on behalf of all others similary
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel --
ykopel@bursor.com -- BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A.
Kittrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Schmidt -- cjschmidt@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Herbert R.
Giorgio -- herb.giorgio@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Jonathan B.
Potts -- jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP.
L'OCCITANE INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Desalvo Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OCCITANE, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00174 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7,
2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
website, https://www.loccitane.com/en-us/ is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
L'occitane, Inc. manufactures and sells skincare products,
including cleansers, toners, moisturizers, scrubs and exfoliants,
eye, and lip care products. L'occitane operates worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
LAKE ARBOR: Ruseell Class Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERITA RUSEELL and DORETHA JOHNSON, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAKE ARBOR
80M TIC, LLC, d/b/a LAKE ARBOR APARTMENTS, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-338-MOC-DSC (W.D. N.C.), Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand to
State Court.
The Plaintiffs contend that the jurisdictional amount of more than
$5 million has not been met for the Defendants to remove the class
action lawsuit. After conducting jurisdictional discovery, the
Defendants now consent to remand, conceding that the jurisdictional
amount has not been met. Therefore, Judge Cogburn will remand the
action to state court.
The Plaintiffs request an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, incurred as the result of the removal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). The Judge in his discretion declines to
do so, as the Defendants possessed an objectively reasonable basis
for seeking removal.
The parties shall each pay their own attorney fees and costs, the
Court further added.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/OiscWm from Leagle.com.
Serita Russell & Doretha Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack
Holtzman
-- jack@ncjustice.org -- North Carolina Justice Center, Julian
Hugh
Wright, Jr. -- jwright@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson, Bradshaw
&
Hinson, P. A., Sharon S. Dove, Mullen Holland & Cooper & Natalia
Maria Botella, Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy.
Lake Arbor 80M TIC, LLC, doing business as Lake Arbor Apartments,
Lake Arbor Dean TIC, LLC, doing business as Lake Arbor Apartments,
Broad Management Group, LLC & Wellington Advisors, LLC,
Defendants,
represented by Erik M. Rosenwood -- Erik@rosenwoodrose.com --
Hamilton Stephens Steele Martin, PLLC, Jennifer K. Van Zant --
jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard, LLP, Whitaker Boykin Rose -- wrose@rosenwoodrose.com --
Baucom, Claytor, Benton, Morgan & Wood & D.J. O'Brien, III --
dobrien@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey &
Leonard.
LAWRENCE COUNTY, PA: Webster Moves to Certify Class of Appellants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SAMUEL T. WEBSTER, individually and as
representative of the class v. JODI KLABON-ESOLDO, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00145-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for class
certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Jodi Klabon-Esoldo is the Prothonotary of the Lawrence County Court
of Common Pleas.
The proposed class consists of all present and future appellants to
the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas who obtain a supersedeas
(stay) of a Magisterial District Court eviction judgment in a de
novo appeal of that judgment.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, seeks to declare unlawful and enjoin Defendant
Prothonotary's policy, practice, or custom (collectively "policy")
of terminating the supersedeas obtained by tenant-appellants in de
novo appeals from Magisterial District Court eviction judgments
without prior notice or an opportunity to object to the
termination, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel G. Vitek, Esq.
Kevin Quisenberry, Esq.
COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 434-6002
E-mail: dvitek@cjplaw.org
kquisenberry@cjplaw.org
One of the Plaintiff's attorneys certifies that notice was sent to
these attorneys of record:
Norman J. Barilla, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN J. BARILLA
111 West Sheridan Avenue
New Castle, PA 16105
Telephone: (724) 654-5549
E-mail: nbarilla@barillalawoffice.com
- and -
Louis M. Perrotta, Esq.
LOUSIE M. PERROTTA, P.C.
229 South Jefferson Street
New Castle, PA 16101
Telephone: (724) 658-9980
E-mail: lou@louperrotta.com
LENDING TREE: Faces Nathan TCPA Suit Over Auto-Dialed Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REUBEN NATHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LENDING TREE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 8:20-cv-00093 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by auto-dialed calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
auto-dialed calls to cellphone owners, and obtain damages for all
persons similarly injured by the Defendant's conduct.
The Plaintiff alleges that at no time did he provide his cellphone
number to the Defendant or provide the Defendant, or any of the
Defendant's agents, with prior express consent to call. He adds
that he received an autodialed call to his cellphone on December 9,
2019, and heard a pause and click or delayed beep on the call and
connection, indicative of an automatic telephone dialing system.
Mr. Nathan is the owner and customary user of a cellphone number
ending in 1237.
Lending Tree is a marketing lead generator and a duly licensed
mortgage broker that generates leads via telemarketing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
John Glugoski, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
MACY'S INC: Chiaraluce et al. Sue over Linen Products Thread Count
------------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA CHIARALUCE; and JONATHAN FONTAINE, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MACY'S INC.;
MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC.; MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.; and
MACYS.COM, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00081-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio,
Jan. 6, 2020) alleges that the Defendants deceive and mislead
consumers and the public into believing that their bedding and
linen products had higher thread counts than they actually did and,
as such, were of better quality, more durable, longer-lasting,
softer, and more comfortable for sleeping than products with lesser
thread counts.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as part of a scheme to
make their bedding and linen products more attractive, boost sales,
and increase profits, the Defendants and their manufacturers and
distributors/importers, including Creative Textiles and AQ
Textiles, knowingly departed from known, well-established, and
long-standing industry standards governing the calculation and
advertisement of thread counts by inflating the thread counts on
the labels of the products they manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and/or sold.
The Defendants misrepresented, and continues to misrepresent, the
thread count in many of the bedding and linen products it
advertises, markets, and distributes throughout the country,
resulting in the sale to consumers throughout the United States of
bedding and linen products represented to have greater thread
counts than their true thread counts. The representation of the
false and misleading thread count also deceives and misleads
consumers into believing that they are purchasing a product which
is of higher quality, durability, longevity, and/or softness,
and/or better for sleeping, than products with a lower thread
count.
As a direct result of the Defendants' improper, deceptive, and
unconscionable scheme to misrepresent bedding and linen thread
counts, the Plaintiffs and other Class members suffered damages
because the inflated thread counts that Defendant represented its
products to have induced the Plaintiffs and other Class Members to
purchase products that they would not have purchased, or would only
have purchased at a lower price, had they known the products'
actual thread counts at the time of purchase.
Macy's, Inc. operates department stores in the United States. The
Company also operates direct mail catalog and electronic commerce
subsidiaries. Macy's retail stores sell a wide range of
merchandise, including men, women, and children apparel and
accessories, cosmetics, home furnishings, and other consumer goods.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew Legando, Esq.
MERRIMAN LEGANDO
WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC
1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 522-9000
E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com
- and -
Bruce Steckler, Esq.
Stuart Cochran, Esq.
Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
stuart@stecklerlaw.com
krogers@stecklerlaw.com
- and -
Erica Mirabella, Esq.
MIRABELLA LAW LLC
132 Boylston St. 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (855) 505-5342
E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com
- and -
Charles LaDuca, Esq.
Brendan Thompson, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Michael McShane, Esq.
Clint Woods, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (877) 882-1011
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
MARDI GRA: LaRock Suit Removed to Massachusetts District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Mardi Gra Entertainment, Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as Leah LaRock, Emily McKay, and
Lindsie Cohen on behalf of themselves and and all others similarly
situated v. Mardi Gra Entertainment, Inc.; Bino, Inc. doing
business as Center Stage; Anthony's Dance Club, Inc.; Anthony
Santaniello; Helen Santaniello; Fifth Alarm, Inc.; Sherri-Lynn Via;
James Santaniello; and B.S.C. Realty, Inc., Case No. 1779CV704, was
removed from the Hampden Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 15, 2020.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-10083-KAR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson.
The Defendants are doing business in the entertainment
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: mthomson@llrlaw.com
- and -
Raymond E. Dinsmore, III, Esq.
DINSMORE STARK, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
60 Masonic Street, Suite E
Northampton, MA 01060
Telephone: (413) 341-3639
Facsimile: (413) 341-3640
E-mail: RDinsmore@DinsmoreStark.com
Defendant B.S.C. Realty, Inc., is represented by:
Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC
75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 367-0025
Facsimile: (617) 367-2155
E-mail: hoffmand@jacksonlewis.com
MAWKS EDELWEISS: Aniszewski Suit Dismissed Due to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John Robert Blakey dismissed without prejudice the
lawsuit captioned Monica Aniszewski v. Mawks Edelweiss, Ltd., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07195 (N.D. Ill.).
According to the Court's Notification of Docket Entry, based upon
the representation of the parties, this case has settled and is,
therefore, dismissed without prejudice. Absent reinstatement on or
before March 20, 2020, the dismissal will convert to one with
prejudice without further order of the Court. All pending
deadlines and hearings (including the April 6, 2020 trial) are
stricken.[CC]
MDL 2592: Objections to Private Deal Terms in Xarelto Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denied the Movants' Objections to Certain
Terms Contained in the Proposed Private Settlement in IN RE:
XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: Catherine Robinson, No. 19-06876, Deborah Anderson, No.
19-07007, Gayle Sellers, No. 19-12205, Francis Rixford, No.
19-06961, George Malone, No. 19-06704, Andre Hawley, No. 19-06794,
Thomas Kenny, No. 19-06806, Doris Rotolo, No. 19-06706, Claude
Wood, No. 19-06997, Curtis Jones, No. 19-06956, Wallace La Londe,
No. 19-06989, Kathleen Brodkin, No. 19-06910, Virginia Griffith,
No. 19-06844, Nancy Alexander, No. 19-06822, Rafic Redwan, No.
19-06732, MDL No. 2592 (E.D. La.).
The current dispute arises out of the private settlement in the
multi-district litigation (MDL) case involving the medication known
as Xarelto. Beginning in 2014, lawsuits were filed in federal
courts throughout the nation against Defendants Bayer Cor., Bayer
HealthCare LLC, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer
HealthCare AG, Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer AG, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen
Ortho LLC, and Johnson & Johnson. In their suits, the Plaintiffs
specifically allege that they or their family members suffered
severe bleeding and other injuries due to Xarelto's allegedly
inadequate warning label as well as other theories.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that the
Plaintiffs' claims involved common questions of fact, and that
centralization under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 would serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. Therefore, on Dec. 12, 2014,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
Plaintiffs' Xarelto claims into a single multidistrict proceeding
("MDL 2592").
MDL 2592 was assigned to Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to coordinate discovery
and other pretrial matters in the pending cases. Subsequent
Xarelto cases filed in federal court have been transferred to the
Louisiana district court to become part of MDL 2592 as "tag along"
cases; at its peak, the District Court had over 30,000 cases in the
Xarelto MDL.
In February 2015, the District Court issued Pretrial Order #7
appointing members to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC").
Since their appointment, the members of the PSC, their firms, and
coordinated counsel have worked on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the
litigation. The PSC has expended considerable time and resources
to develop the Plaintiffs' claims. It has assembled a "trial
package" consisting of various depositions, expert reports, trial
transcripts, law memoranda, and briefs used in the development of
the litigation. The material is available to any litigant who
decides to not opt into the settlement program and instead proceeds
to trial.
After years of discovery and bellwether trials, the PSC and the
Defendants entered into settlement discussions and in early 2019,
reached a settlement. On March 25, 2019, they announced the Master
Settlement Agreement, a private agreement that was negotiated over
the course of several months and reflected compromises on both
sides that were informed by years of pretrial discovery, motion
practice, and trials. This is an opt-in settlement program and
thus far, over 99% of the Plaintiffs in the litigation have chosen
to opt into the settlement.
After the settlement was reached, 15 new Plaintiffs retained the
Mike Love Firm to file claims on their behalf. These new actions
were consolidated with the MDL and have the opportunity to opt into
the settlement. On Nov. 6, 2019, the Mike Love Firm, representing
the moving Plaintiffs, contacted the PSC and the Defendants'
counsel to express opposition to the proposed settlement.
At the Nov. 7, 2019 Xarelto monthly status conference, the District
Court was advised of the Love opposition and the Court instructed
Mike Love to file his opposition to the proposed settlement
agreement on the record and set the objections for hearing on Dec.
12, 2019. The Movants filed their objections on Nov. 19, 2019.
The hearing on Movants' objections was held on Dec. 12, 2019
following the monthly status conference.
The Movants' objections target certain terms in the proposed
private settlement and seek the following relief: (1) an order
striking a number of terms in the settlement agreement, including
but not limited to all terms contained in section 10 of the
agreement; (2) an order setting a hearing to determine if the Court
should conditionally certify a settlement class; (3) an order
setting a fairness hearing regarding the fairness of any revised
global settlement proposal; (4) an Order striking section 3.8 of
the proposed agreement; (5) an order that grants the Plaintiffs
additional time to consider enrollment in a court-supervised class
settlement; (6) an order appointing additional counsel to serve on
a second PSC for plaintiffs not enrolled in the settlement program;
and (7) an order abating pending CMO deadlines applicable to the
non-settling Plaintiffs until the second PSC is appointed.
In response, the PSC opposes the Movants' first request because it
asks that the Court "forcibly impose and certify a class settlement
on the parties in litigation," which the Court is not authorized to
do because this litigation is a multi-district litigation and not a
class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Additionally, the PSC argues that the Movants do not have standing
to ask the Court to either set aside or modify the proposed
settlement agreement because they have not opted into the program
and are not bound by the terms of the settlement agreement.
Moreover, the PSC disputes the Movants' claim that provisions of
the settlement agreement are unethical, highlighting the fact that
the provisions were only agreed to after consultation with separate
ethics counsel and that all attorneys whose clients opt into the
settlement can avail themselves of the "safe harbor" language
included in the settlement agreement. Finally, the PSC does not
see the need for a second PSC to be appointed, as only a small
number of firms are declining to opt into the settlement process
and all general discovery has already been completed, so only
case-specific discovery may be required.
Defendants Bayer Corp., et al., also oppose Movants' objections and
requested relief for several reasons. First, they emphasize that
the Court has no authority to overturn a private settlement
agreement between consenting parties and the MDL does not involve a
class-action that would authorize the Court to establish a
settlement class. Second, the Defendants contend the Movants lack
standing to challenge the settlement because they have declined to
participate in the proposed settlement and are not bound by its
provisions. Third, they assert that the proposed settlement
agreement does not impact the Movants' legal rights because they
have access to the relevant discovery previously taken in the case
and can use the trial package to proceed with their respective
cases. Finally, the Defendants do not think there is a need to
appoint a new PSC because generic discovery has already been
completed and all that remains is case-specific work.
First, Judge Fallon concludes that the private settlement agreement
does not legally prejudice the Movants because they are free to not
opt-in—as they have thus far decided—and proceed with their
individual cases utilizing the trial package prepared by the PSC.
At best, he only sees a potential "tactical disadvantage" that the
Movants may suffer; namely, that the Plaintiffs' counsel who were
involved throughout the course of the litigation will no longer be
involved in the litigation and will not aid the Movants in
preparation of their individual cases beyond what they have already
done in preparing the trial package materials. It is not
sufficient to support a claim of legal prejudice. Thus, Judge
Fallon concludes that the Movants lack standing to contest the
settlement agreement. Furthermore, even if they did have standing
to challenge the private settlement agreement, Judge Fallon does
not agree that the agreement is prejudicial to the Movants.
Next, a plain reading of the settlement agreement, along with the
PSC's assurances that the entire trial package is available to all
the non-settling Plaintiffs, leads the Judge to conclude that the
private agreement is not unfair, punitive, or prejudicial to the
non-settling Plaintiffs. The Movants are free to not opt into the
settlement and instead, proceed with their individual cases.
Moreover, because general discovery has concluded in the matter,
Judge Fallon does not find it to be necessary to appoint a second
PSC at this time.
For the reasons stated, Judge Fallon denies the Movants' Requested
Relief in its entirety.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/OFZN8p from Leagle.com.
Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard A. Davis --
ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Gerald
Edward Meunier -- Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer.
Defendant, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Sharko --
susan.sharko@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, James B.
Irwin, V -- jirwin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart &
Moore, LLC & Steven Jay Glickstein --
steven.glickstein@kayescholer.com -- Kaye, Scholer, LLP.
Jake Woody, Interested Party, represented by Jacob S. Woody --
jswoody@browngreer.com -- BrownGreer PLC.
MG 19501 BISCAYNE: Fails to Pay Sous Chefs Overtime, Mizell Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZA MICHAEL MIZELL, and all other similarly-situated, Plaintiff
v. MG 19501 BISCAYNE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-20425
(S.D.Fla., January 30, 2020) is a class action brought against the
Defendant for their unlawful pay practices and policies such as
failure to pay proper overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mizell and those similarly situated are/were employed by Defendant
in the position of sous chef at International Smoke, a high end
restaurant owned and operated by Defendant in the Aventura Mall in
Miami, Florida. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant did not properly
pay them overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Moreover, Plaintiff and other similarly situated demand a jury
trial and respectfully pray that all the necessary damages they
incurred be awarded to them such as unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, the costs of this action, and all recoverable
interest. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anisley Tarragona, Esq.
Jason D. Berkowitz, Esq.
BT LAW GROUP, PLLC
3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 205
Miami, FL 33137
Tel: (305) 507-8506
Email: anisley@battorneys.com
Jason@battorneys.com
MILANO MENSWEAR: Faces Mahoney ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milano Menswear LLC.
The case is captioned as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MILANO MENSWEAR LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00272-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Jan 15, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990.
Milano Menswear offers suits and formal wear for men and boys of
all ages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: dglanzberg@aol.com
MME CAPITAL: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MME CAPITAL, LLC dba MONEY MERCHANT
EXPO and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
3:20-cv-00352 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing
unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant placed multiple calls
soliciting its business to Plaintiff on its cellular telephones
ending in -7511 in August 23, 2017, and continuing through August
20, 2019, in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of
the TCPA.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of MME
Capital.
MME is a business loan company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 323 306-4234
Facsimile: 866 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
NATIONAL CREDIT: Carter Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit Audit
Corporation. The case is styled as Simonia Carter, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National
Credit Audit Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00368-JCJ (E.D., Pa., Jan. 22, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutes:
Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
National Credit Audit Corporation is an Illinois collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
Kalikhman & Rayz LLC
1051 County Line Road, Suite A
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Tel: (215) 364-5030
Fax: (215) 364-5029
Email: erayz@kalraylaw.com
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Lopez Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Eduardo Lopez, an individual, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v.
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LP, a Delaware limited liability
company and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV39983, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on Jan. 31, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01031 to the
proceeding.
The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) recovery of unpaid
minimum wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to
provide rest periods; (4) failure to timely furnish accurate,
itemized wage statements; (5) violations of Labor Code § 203; (6)
declaratory relief; (7) unfair business practices; and (8) wrongful
termination in violation of public policy.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy M. Fisher, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 795-4700
Fax: (626) 795-4790
Email: tfisher@scopelitis.com
- and -
Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
3214 W McGraw Street, Suite 301F
Seattle, WA 98199
Phone: (206) 288-6192
Fax: (206) 299-9375
Email: asmedstad@scopelitis.com
- and -
Alaina C. Hawley, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46214
Phone: (317) 637-1777
Fax: (317) 687-2414
Email: ahawley@scopelitis.com
NCAA: Baugus II Sues over McNeese Football Athletes' Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN BAUGUS II, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00091 (S.D. Ind., Jan. 6,
2020) is an action to obtain redress for injuries sustained a
result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
("UMTC") student-athletes.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those of the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other UMTC football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and
for profit.
As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former UMTC football players suffered brain
and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football.
NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State,
but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NESAMA FOOD: Inga Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justo Enrique Inga, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. NESAMA FOOD CORP. d/b/a BIG ARC CHICKEN, MOHAMMED EL
HATTAB, and ABDELLATIF MAHMOUD, Case No. 1:20-cv-00909 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day his
work shift exceeded 10 hours, liquidated and statutory damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff says he worked over 40 hours per week, and that his
work shift would occasionally exceed 10 hours in a single day. He
asserts that he was not required to punch a time clock or other
time-recording device at the beginning or end of his work shift.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt cook
and porter for their restaurant from 2009 until November 1, 2018.
He alleges that he was not paid proper minimum wages and overtime
compensation. He explains that work he performed above 40 hours per
week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as
required by state and federal law. He adds that at no time during
his employment did the Defendants provide him with a weekly wage
statement when paying him his cash wages, which explained his gross
wages, deductions, and net wages.
NESAMA FOOD, owns and operates a restaurant doing business as "Big
Arc Chicken," located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jcpclaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Weaver Suit Over Civil Rights Violations Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the case, GEORGE WEAVER; VERA
NASEVA; LUZ CONCEPCION; LUIS FLORES, each on their own behalf and
collectively on behalf of all others similarly-situated; FIGHT FOR
NYCHA, Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY; GREGORY
RUSS, Chair and CEO; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; BILL DE BLASIO, Mayor of
the City of New York; GALE BREWER, individually as President of the
Borough of Manhattan and acting, collectively, by and through her
aide, BRIAN LEWIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-10760 (CM) (S.D.
N.Y.).
The Civil Judgment is pursuant to the order issued Dec. 20, 2019,
dismissing the action. Judge McMahon dismissed Fight for NYCHA's
claims without prejudice. The Judge denied the remaining
Plaintiffs' requests brought on behalf of others, including their
request to proceed as a class action. The Judge also dismissed
those Plaintiffs' claims that they assert on behalf of others
without prejudice. The Judge dismissed the remaining plaintiffs'
own claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. The Judge declines to
consider any state-law claims.
Judge McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from the Court's judgment would not be taken in good faith.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Civil
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/zimahW from Leagle.com.
George Weaver, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se.
Vera Naseva, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se.
Luz Concepcion, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf
of all other similarly-situtated, Plaintiff, pro se.
Fight For NYCHA, an unicorporated association by and through its
Coordinating Committe members Louis Flores and Marni Halasa,
Plaintiff, pro se.
Louis Flores, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Certification Sought in Baleja Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOHN BALEJA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SPACE
& MISSIONS SYSTEMS CORP. SALARIED PENSION PLAN, ET AL., Case No.
5:17-cv-00235-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), moves for certification of a
proposed class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Court will commence a hearing on March 23, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter K. Stris, Esq.
Brendan S. Maher, Esq.
Victor O'connell, Esq.
John Stokes, Esq.
Loren Beck, Esq.
STRIS & MAHER LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 995-6800
Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com
brendan.maher@strismaher.com
victor.oconnell@strismaher.com
john.stokes@strismaher.com
loren.beck@strismaher.com
- and -
Shaun P. Martin, Esq.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW
5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 260-2347
Facsimile: (619) 260-7933
E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Carrero Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Carrero, Robert Davenport, Justin Correira, and Dawud Turner,
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH,
INC. f/d/b/a North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 701865/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Feb. 3, 2020), seeks
to recover from the Defendant damages under the New York Labor Law
for its systematic failure to pay the Plaintiffs their fully and
due wages.
According to the complaint, while the Plaintiffs were at their
posts, the Defendant required them to work during meal breaks
absent compensation for that work. For days when the Plaintiffs
worked at least 10 hours in a given day, the Defendant failed to
compensate the Plaintiffs an additional hour of work at the
statutory minimum wage rate then applicable.
The Defendant violated multiple provisions of the NYLL in doing so
when it failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the class they seek
to represent for all of the work they performed as the Defendant's
employees, the Plaintiffs contend. As a result of this policy and
practice, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and members of
the putative Collective and Class overtime compensation when they
worked in excess of 40 hours certain weeks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as a paramedic and
emergency medical technicians.
Northwell is a Domestic Business Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve Pipenger, Esq.
PIPENGER & PARTNERS, LLP
68 Jay Street, Suite 201
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (646) 732-5700
Email: steve@pipengerandpartners.com
OCWEN LOAN: Pantano Consumer Credit Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERYL PANTANO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-11178-DJC (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J.
Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(i) granted Pantano's motion to remand the matter to state court,
and (ii) denied as moot Ocwen's motion for dismissal.
Pantano filed the putative class action lawsuit against Defendant
Ocwen, alleging violations of Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Section 2 and
940 C.M.R. Section 7.04 (Count I). Pantano is a resident of
Peabody, Massachusetts, who took on debt to Ocwen in the form of a
residential mortgage loan. Ocwen is a corporation with its
principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida. At all
relevant times, Pantano's debt to Ocwen has been allegedly more
than 30 days overdue.
In the last four years, Ocwen has repeatedly called Pantano's
cellular telephone to attempt to collect the amount owed on the
mortgage. From November 2017 through January 2018, Ocwen allegedly
called Pantano daily and repeatedly more than two times within a
given seven-day period. Pantano suffered anger, anxiety, emotional
distress, fear and frustration as a result of the calls.
On Jan. 16, 2019, Pantano sent Ocwen a letter via certified mail
identifying her claim and describing Ocwen's unfair and deceptive
acts, pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Section 9(3). On March 6,
2019, Ocwen responded to Pantano's letter which did not include a
settlement offer.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: all consumers
residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who, within four
years prior to the filing of the action, received in excess of two
telephone calls regarding a debt from Ocwen within a seven-day
period to their residence, cellular telephone, or other provided
telephone number.
Pantano alleges that there are thousands of Massachusetts consumers
who are members of the proposed class. In the original state court
civil cover sheet, Pantano sought damages in the amount greater
than $25,001 on behalf of the Plaintiff and the class.
Pantano instituted the action in Essex Superior Court on April 1,
2019, and Ocwen removed the matter to the Massachusetts federal
district court on May 24, 2019. Ocwen removed the case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1441 claiming diversity jurisdiction, which
requires complete diversity between the parties and an amount in
controversy greater than $75,000.
Pantano has now moved for remand to state court, and Ocwen has
moved for dismissal.
Pantano makes two arguments with respect to the amount in
controversy: (1) the $25,001 figure listed on the state court civil
cover sheet took into account class-wide damages and thus is not a
meaningful figure for analysis of the amount in controversy; and
(2) the fact that the initial action was filed in Superior Court,
which has a jurisdictional requirement of at least $25,000 in
controversy, is not dispositive of the amount in controversy for
purposes of federal jurisdiction.
The Court heard the parties on the pending motions and took the
matters under advisement.
To extent that Ocwen has now belatedly invoked 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2) to avoid remand, Judge Casper notes the following. The
Court inquired at the motion hearing about the application of the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") and since that hearing, Ocwen
has filed a Supplemental Notice of Removal relying upon, in the
alternative to diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332(a), CAFA,
for removal. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1322(d)(2), Ocwen has the
burden of showing, among other things, that the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is a class action [meeting certain criteria
as to diversity between the parties.
Even assuming the other criteria have been met, Ocwen has failed to
show, even on the supplemented record, that the amount in
controversy as to the proposed class action exceeds $5 million. In
its calculations, it assumes that 12,000 consumers would be in the
class, but does not show a reasonable probability that each class
member would each receive $400, or even closer to $353.
Accordingly, on the current record, to the extent that Ocwen is now
seeking to invoke jurisdiction under CAFA to avoid remand, it has
failed to meet its burden of same at this time.
For all of these reasons, Judge Casper granted the motion to
remand. Given her ruling on the motion to remand, the Judge denied
as moot the motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/Qnhp7p from Leagle.com.
Cheryl Pantano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg --
slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- Lemberg Law, L.L.C. & Joshua Markovits,
Lemberg Law, LLC, pro hac vice.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard E.
Briansky -- rbriansky@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC & Joe N. Nguyen, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP,
pro hac vice.
OMEGA PROJECT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morrison Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allen Morrison, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Omega Project Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00344 (S.D. Tex., January 30, 2020) is a class
action brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
Omega Project Solutions provides staffing solutions to projects
ranging from engineering, power industry, oil and gas, and
infrastructure and buildings.
Morrison worked for Omega as a Quality Manager on an hourly basis
from March 2014 to March 2017. Throughout his employment with
Omega, Morrison was paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked
(including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek)
with no overtime compensation. Morrison brings this action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated workers who were
paid by Omega's "straight time for overtime" system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
ORACLE CORP: Sunrise Firefighters' Suit Dismissed w/ Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CITY OF SUNRISE FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-04844-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave
to amend.
The case is a putative class action for securities fraud brought
against Oracle and its officers Safra A. Catz, Mark Hurd, Lawrence
J. Ellison, Thomas Kurian, Ken Bond, and Steve Miranda ("Individual
Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff, Union Asset Management Holding AG,
has filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC")
alleging that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff also
asserts that Catz, Hurd, and Ellison are liable for violations of
federal securities laws as "control persons" of Oracle, pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Finally, it claims Kurian
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling Oracle common
stocks.
Based on these allegations, the Lead Plaintiff brings the lawsuit
on behalf of itself, and other purchasers of Oracle stock between
March 15, 2017 and June 19, 2018, alleging that the Defendants
misrepresented Oracle's revenue growth within its Cloud segment and
the drivers of that growth. The Defendants move to dismiss the
CAC.
Judge Freeman holds that to successfully state a claim, the
Plaintiff must plead with particularity what statements were made,
when they were made, why they were false at the time they were
made, and how the Defendant who made the statement acted with
scienter at the time the statements were made. Because the
Plaintiff fails to adequately plead that the Defendants made any
false or misleading statements and that they did so with scienter,
the motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend.
Any amended complaint should be filed by Feb. 17, 2020. Judge
Freean requests that the chambers copy of any amended complaint be
a redlined version, in color. Failure to meet the deadline to file
an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified
in this Order will result in a dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims
with prejudice.
For the amended complaint, pursuant to the PSLRA and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the sake of clarity and efficient
case management, the Plaintiff is directed to set out in chart form
their securities fraud allegations under the following headings on
a numbered, statement-by-statement basis: (1) the speaker(s),
date(s) and medium; (2) the false and misleading statements; (3)
the reasons why the statements were false and misleading when made;
and (4) the facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter.
The chart may be attached to or contained in the amended complaint,
but in any event will be deemed to be a part of the amended
complaint.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/IfLfH4 from Leagle.com.
City of Sunrise Firefighters' Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Jonathan Daniel Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP.
Union Asset Management Holding AG, Appointed Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, represented by Abe Alexander, Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Daniel
Uslaner, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Julia K. Tebor,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP & Mark Lebovitch --
markl@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.
Oracle Corporation, Safra A. Catz, Mark Hurd, Lawrence J. Ellison,
Thomas Kurian, Ken Bond & Steve Miranda, Defendants, represented by
Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Mark R.S.
Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.
P.C. RICHARD: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.C. Richard & Son, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. P.C. Richard &
Son, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00338 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22,
2020).
P.C. Richard & Son, LLC is in the Household Appliance Stores
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
PEARSALL CANDY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Mahmood Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faisal Mahmood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEARSALL CANDY INC., SHAZIA SATTAR, ABDUL SATTAR and
RATI PATTEL, as individuals, Case No. 2:20-cv-00551 (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
31, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
the Plaintiff's employment.
Although the Plaintiff worked for 77 hours or more per week during
his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay him
time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of
the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from March 2012 until
September 2019.
PEARSALL CANDY INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of
New York with a principal executive office in Cedarhurst, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
Fax: 718-263-9598
PRAIRIE FARMS: Darby Sues over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream
-----------------------------------------------------------
LARRELL DARBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRAIRIE FARMS DAIRY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00151 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2020) alleges that the
Defendant mislabeled its vanilla ice cream products.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
vanilla bean ice cream products purporting to contain flavor only
from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla under their
Prairie Farms Small Batch brand.
The Defendant's Product's include "Premium Vanilla Bean Ice Cream,"
"Small Batch," "Farmer Owned," "Prairie Farms," "Made with Local
Milk & Cream," "Natural Ingredients," a cow and a scoop of the
product nestled in a cone, showing specks of vanilla bean seeds and
three vanilla beans.
The front label statements of "Vanilla Bean Ice Cream" and "Vanilla
Bean" are understood by consumers to identify a product where (1)
vanilla is the characterizing flavor, (2) vanilla is contained in a
sufficient amount to flavor the product, (3) the flavor is derived
from vanilla extract or vanilla flavoring and unexhausted vanilla
beans, (4) no other flavors in the simulate, resemble, reinforce,
or enhance flavoring from vanilla and (5) vanilla is the exclusive
source of flavor.
The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount,
type and percentage of vanilla beans and vanilla extract or vanilla
flavoring as a component of the flavoring in the ice cream, which
is required and consistent with consumer expectations. Had
plaintiff and class members known the truth about the Products,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it.
Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. manufactures dairy products, including
milk, cottage cheese, sour cream, dips, yogurt, juices, butter, ice
cream, and frozen dessert products. Prairie Farms Dairy serves
customers in the State of Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS: Naiman Alleges Telephone Privacy Invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sid Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Professional Builders, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00976 (C.D. Calif., January 30, 2020) is a class
action brought against the Defendant for allegedly invading
Plaintiff's privacy by illegally contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
In an attempt to promote or sell its services and without prior
express consent, Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing
system and placed multiple calls on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number which is a violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions
of the TCPA.
Plaintiff brought this action on his behalf and on behalf of all
other similarly situated who were harmed by the illegal acts of
Defendant.
Defendant Professional Builders, Inc. is a construction
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, C.A 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
PUBLIC HEALTH: Lauzurique Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Lauzurique, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Case No.
1:20-cv-20464-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2020), is brought for unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff says she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in
one or more work weeks for the Defendant. However, the Defendant
has failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours
worked by the Plaintiff for all of their actual overtime hours
worked with the Defendant instead paying salaried wages for 40
hours per week but without time and one-half compensation for the
overtime hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as "Credentialing
Specialists."
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY has operated and done
business Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (305) 901-1379
Email: employlaw@keithstern.com
QUICKEN LOANS: Sued by Winters Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quicken Loans Inc., Case NO.
2:20-cv-00112-MTL (D. Ariz., Jan. 15, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing
unsolicited telephone calls and unsolicited unwanted text messages
to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's calls constituted calls
that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(1)(A). He adds that the Defendant's calls were
placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service
for which he incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47
U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). He asserts that he was never a customer
of Defendant and never provided his cellular telephone number to
the Defendant for any reason whatsoever.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's illegal actions.
The Defendant is a mortgage lending company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: 800 400-6808
Facsimile: 800 520-5523
E-mail: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
RALPHS GROCERY: Yannoulatos Sues Over Failure to Provide Seats
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Yannoulatos and Jill Laface, individually, and as
representatives of all others similarly situated v. RALPHS GROCERY
COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV04200
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover
civil penalties arising from the Defendants' violations of the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ralphs failed to provide them
and other similarly situated self-checkout attendants with seats,
in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiffs assert that they are
aggrieved employees and the other employees with similar stationary
job functions, including other self-checkout attendants, who were
employed by the Defendant in California, are also negatively
impacted by the Company's policies.
The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendants as
self-checkout attendants.
Ralphs is a California grocery store chain operation, operating
throughout the State of California and in the County of Los
Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
K.L. Myles, Esq.
Michael D. Carr, Esq.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Phone: (818) 547-5000
Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
Email: aej@kpclegal.com
klm@kpclegal.com
mdc@kpclegal.com
- and -
Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
Glendale, CS 91203-1922
Phone: (818)247-9111
Email: jehdian@lawyer.com
RENUE SYSTEMS: Sierra FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Renue Systems of NY-NJ, LLC and Justin Chodos removed the case
captioned as Martin Sierra, individually, and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals v. Renue Systems of NY-NJ, LLC, and
Justin Chodos, Individually, Case No. 161986/2019, from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 15,
2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00399 to the proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges claims of failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, as well as failure to pay overtime, failure to compensate
for "spread of hours," and notice and recordkeeping violations,
including failure to provide accurate wage statement and a wage
notice, in violation of the New York Labor Law.
Renue Systems is a comprehensive service provider of deep
restorative cleaning and maintenance services for the
hotel/hospitality, commercial real estate, and gaming
industries.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Francis J. Giambalvo, Esq.
Mercedes Colwin, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
One Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 269-5500
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Mack's Bid for Class Certification Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sara L. Ellis grants the motion for class certification in
the lawsuit captioned YVONNE MACK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.,
and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-06300 (N.D. Ill.).
The Court certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:
All persons in the State of Illinois who, between
September 14, 2017 and September 14, 2018, sought validation
of a debt within forty-five days of the mailing of an
initial collection letter from Defendants Resurgent Capital
Services, L.P. or LVNV Funding, LLC or their agents, and in
response received a form letter that included a
Section 1692g validation notice.
Judge Ellis appoints Yvonne Mack as the class representative and
appoints David J. Philipps, Esq., Mary E. Philipps, Esq., Angie K.
Robertson, Esq., Larry P. Smith, Esq., and David M. Marco, Esq., as
class counsel.
According to the Court's Opinion and Order, the Plaintiff defaulted
on a consumer debt acquired by LVNV and serviced by Resurgent.
After she disputed her debt in response to an initial collection
letter, she received another form letter from Resurgent that
included language as to how to dispute the debt. She contends that
this form letter violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act because it used false or deceptive means
to collect or attempt to collect her debt.[CC]
RSI HOME: Rodriguez Suit Moved to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
RSI Home Products, Inc., et al., removed the case captioned
CHRISTOPHER J. RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RSI HOME PRODUCTS,
INC., a corporation; RSI PROFESSIONAL CABINET SOLUTIONS, a
corporation; PROFESSIONAL CABINET SOLUTIONS, a corporation;
AMERICAN WOODMARK CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, Inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1936827 (Filed Dec. 5, 2019), from the
California Superior Court, San Bernardino County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 16,
2020.
Mr. Rodriguez alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage and/or overtime pay. He
was employed by the Defendants in California as a non-exempt
employee from July 2014 to May 2019.
RSI Home provides houseware products. The company offers kitchen,
bath, cabinet, countertop, and accessory products.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Ashley R. Li, Esq.
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310 315 8200
Facsimile: 310 315 8210
E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
ali@mcguirewoods.com
skim@mcguirewoods.com
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Named Lead Plaintiff in Sec. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW SALINGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS,
INC., DOUGLAS S. INGRAM, and SANDESH MAHATME, Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-8122 (VSB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York has appointed
Bernard Portnoy as Lead Plaintiff and approved Portnoy's selection
of the lead counsel.
On Aug. 30, 2019, the Class Action Complaint was filed against
Sarepta as well as its former CEO and President Douglas S. Ingram,
and former CFO and VP Sandesh Mahatme, alleging that Sarepta and
the Individual Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. Sarepta is a company that focuses on the
discovery and development of ribonucleic acid ("RNA")-based
therapeutics, gene therapy, and other genetic medicine approaches
for the treatment of rare diseases, and one of its potential drug
products was golodirsen, a drug being developed for the treatment
of duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD").
The Complaint alleges that between Sept. 6, 2017, and Aug. 19,
2019, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding Sarepta's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, they made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
golodirsen posed significant safety risks to patients; (ii)
consequently, the [new drug application] package for golodirsen's
accelerated approval was unlikely to receive FDA approval; and
(iii) as a result, Sarepta's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of false
and/or misleading statements or omissions, those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Sarepta securities during the Class Period
sustained significant losses and damages.
On Aug. 30, 2019, the same day the Complaint was filed, Pomerantz
LLP published a notice of the Complaint on Globe Newswire in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA"). The notice was addressed to all persons or
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired
publicly traded Sarepta securities between Sept. 6, 2017, and Aug.
19, 2019," and detailed the claims in the Complaint. The notice
informed the Class members that they had until Oct. 29, 2019, to
file to seek appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.
On Oct. 29, 2019, five Class members filed motions seeking to be
appointed Lead Plaintiff and for approval of the lead counsel:
- Class members Lee, Judy, and Clay Mills ("Mills Family")
moved to appoint themselves as the Lead Plaintiffs and for
approval of Gainey McKenna & Egleston as the lead counsel.
- Dorian S. Vergos moved to appoint himself as the Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of Levi & Korsinsky to serve
as the lead counsel.
- Michael Mountain moved to appoint himself as the Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of Faruqi & Faruqi as the
lead counsel.
- Bernard Portnoy moved to appoint himself as the Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as the lead
counsel.
- TJC Services Limited moved to appoint itself as the
Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Johnson Fistel, LLP
as the lead counsel.
In response to these motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and
approval of lead counsel, on Nov. 12, 2019, the Mills Family,
Vergos, and TJC Services each filed a notice of withdrawal of their
motion seeking an order appointing them as lead plaintiffs and
appointing Gainey McKenna, Johnson Fistel, and Levi & Korsinsky,
respectively, as lead counsel for the class. Mountain filed a
notice of non-opposition to Portnoy's motion for appointment of
lead plaintiff recognizing that he does not possess the largest
individual financial interest among the various movants. On Nov.
13, 2019, Bernard Portnoy filed a notice stating that the other
four movants had either withdrawn their motions, or filed a notice
of non-opposition, and that his motion was unopposed.
On review, the District Court finds that Portnoy is the "most
adequate" Plaintiff under the PSLRA, and that the remaining movants
have failed to rebut this presumption.
Thus, the District Court granted Bernard Portnoy's motion for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of lead counsel.
The District Court denied the remaining motions by the Mills
Family, Vergos, Mountain, and TJC Services, for appointment as lead
plaintiff.
Bernard Portnoy is directed to file a second amended complaint no
later than 60 days after the date of issuance of the Opinion &
Order. The Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond
to the second amended complaint no later than 60 days after Bernard
Portnoy serves the second amended complaint.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/GCHyV7 from Leagle.com.
Bernard Portnoy, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP.
Andrew Salinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.
Family Mills, Movant, represented by Thomas James McKenna --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston.
Dorian A. Vergos, Movant, represented by Gregory Mark Nespole --
gnespole@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.
Michael Mountain, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello
-- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.
TJC Services Limited, Movant, represented by William Scott Holleman
-- holleman@bespc.com -- Johnson Fistel, LLP.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Douglas S. Ingram & Sandesh Mahatme,
Defendants, represented by Andrew Brian Clubok, Latham & Watkins
LLP.
SAUCE VENTURES: Conner Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Sauce Ventures, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Sauce Ventures, LLC, doing
business as: Truff Hot Sauce, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00343
(E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020).
Sauce Ventures, LLC is a privately held company in Huntington
Beach, CA and is a Single Location business. Categorized under
Sauces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SAYEH PETROLEUM, INC: Mikich Files Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sayeh Petroleum, Inc.
The case is styled as Charles Mikich, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sayeh Petroleum, Inc., a
California corporation, Defendants, Case No. CGC20582385 (Cal.
Super., Jan. 22, 2020).
The case type is stated as other non-exempt complaints.
Sayeh Petroleum, Inc. is in the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David spivak, Esq.
16530 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 203
Encino, CA 91436
SL DISTRIBUTION: Macedonia's Bid to Certify Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable James V. Selna has taken under submission the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled
Macedonia Distributing Inc. v. S.L. Distribution Company, LLC, Case
No. 8:17-cv-01692-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.).
According to the Court's Civil Minutes, cause is called for hearing
and counsel make their appearances. The Court's tentative ruling
is issued. The Motion is argued and taken under submission.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annick Persinger, Esq.
V Chai Prentice, Esq.
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
483 Ninth St., Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
The Defendant is represented by:
Dale Giali, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone: (213) 229-9509
Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Philip Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Philip, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01111 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 3, 2020), is a brought for legal and equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending
automated text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone and
the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across the
country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
All of the subject text messages received by the Plaintiff and the
members of the putative Class were transmitted by or on behalf of
the Defendant without the requisite prior "express written consent"
of the Plaintiff or any member of the putative Class, the Plaintiff
contends. He asserts that the Defendant actually transmitted the
text messages at issue in this case to him and all other putative
Class members in an automated fashion and without human
intervention, with hardware and software that received and stored
telephone numbers and then automatically dialed such numbers.
Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him whenever he
receives a text message, each unsolicited text message transmitted
by or on behalf of the Defendant to his Number invaded his privacy
and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of North Hollywood,
California.
SmileDirectClub, Inc. is a "teledentistry" company that does
business online and at its over 300 brick-and-mortar retail
locations across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: + 1 (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: + 1 (415) 402-0058
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
SPORT LA. INC: Underpays Laborers, Aguilon et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------
ANIBAL JOSE AGUILON; REYNALDO PEREZ ROSALES; and ELI JOEL PEREZ
ROSALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPORT LA. INC. D/B/A H&R LOGISTICS; OLARTE
TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC.; HUMBERTO LOPEZ; RALPH OLARTE; MARCIAL
OLARTE; and DOES 1 TROUGH 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV00292 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 6, 2020) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers.
Sport La. Inc. d/b/a H&R Logistics is engaged in the trucking
industry. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gabriel Sandoval, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GABRIEL SANDOVAL
15260 Ventura Blvd. Suite 1200
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: (213) 262-9884
Fax: (310) 388-0366
E-mail: gsandoval@gslawoffice.com
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Sebastian Suit Deal Gets Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONOVAN SEBASTIAN, individually, on a representative
basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kansas Corporation, and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00757-JLS-KES
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California granted the Plaintiff's
unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement
as to the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and
Release.
Judge Staton approved the parties' Settlement and proposed
releases, having found them fair, reasonable, and adequate.
For purposes of the Settlement, the Judge has certified the
Settlement Classes defined in the Settlement Agreement.
Plaintiff Donovan Sebastian has been confirmed as class
representative. The Court approved as reasonable the Class
Representative Enhancement Award to the Plaintiff in the amount of
$10,000.
Brian J. Mankin of Fernandez & Lauby LLP has been confirmed as
Class Counsel. The Court approved as reasonable an $812,500 award
for attorneys' fees and an $8,952.56 award for attorney's costs.
Simpluris, Inc. has been confirmed as Settlement Administrator.
The Court approved Settlement Administration Costs in the amount of
$9,473.
The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise
provided in the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Final
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/VVrzEu from Leagle.com.
Donovan Sebastian, individually, on a representative basis, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Brian J. Mankin -- bjm@fernandezlauby.com -- Fernandez and Lauby
LLP & Peter Carlson -- pjc@fernandezlauby.com -- Fernandez and
Lauby LLP.
Sprint/United Management Company, a Kansas Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Amy Schaefer Ramsey -- aramsey@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson PC, Gabriel M. Huey -- ghuey@HuntonAK.com --
Littler Mendelson PC & Margaret A. Parker -- maparker@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson PC.
SYSCO CORP: $500K Settlement in Martin Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SYSCO CORPORATION and SYSCO
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00990-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted final
approval to class action settlement and request for attorneys'
fees.
The Court previously granted preliminary approval of a class action
settlement in the action on July 19, 2019. Following the granting
of preliminary approval, the class administrator mailed class
notices to all 167 class members on Aug. 12, 2019. The deadline to
request exclusion from the settlement and to object to the
settlement was Sept. 26, 2019. As of the filing of the Plaintiff's
motion for final approval on Nov. 5, 2019, no class member has
requested exclusion and no objections have been filed. Moreover,
no class members appeared at the final approval hearing.
The gross settlement amount is $500,000, and the settlement is
projected to pay class members an estimated average payment of
$1,999.86.
Judge Drozd finds on balance, and after considering all of the
relevant factors, that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
Accordingly, Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the class action settlement, and approved the
settlement. Judge Drozd also granted the Plaintiff's request for
attorneys' fees and costs, an incentive payment, and settlement
costs, and awards the following sums: (i) the class counsel will
receive $125,000 in attorneys' fees and $26,526.28 in costs; (ii)
Named plaintiff John Martin will receive $7,500 as an incentive
payment; and (ii) the settlement administrator, ILYM Group Inc.,
will receive $6,996.35 for settlement administration costs.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/YGAK1S from Leagle.com.
John Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by David Thomas Mara -- dmara@maralawfirm.com -- Mara
Law Firm PC, Jessica Renee Corrales -- jcorrales@turleylawfirm.com
-- Turley Law Firm, APLC, Jill Marie Vecchi --
jvecchi@maralawfirm.com -- Mara Law Firm, Matthew Evan Crawford ,
Mara Law Firm, PC, William Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com --
Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC & Gwendolyne Nicole Ousdahl --
ntrenner@maralawfirm.com -- Mara Law Firm.
Sysco Corporation & SYSCO Central California, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Diamond M. Hicks -dhicks@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, Margaret Rosenthal -- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP, Nicholas D. Poper -- npoper@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP & Sabrina Layne Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com
-- Baker and Hostetler LLP.
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faces Fisk Suit Over Merger With Blackstone
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Fisk, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TALLGRASS ENERGY, LP, WILLIAM R. MOLER, MARCELINO OREJA
ARBURUA, GUY G. BUCKLEY, ROY N. COOK, THOMAS A. GERKE, WALLACE C.
HENDERSON, MATTHEW J.K. RUNKLE, and TERRANCE D. TOWNER, Case No.
1:20-cv-00155-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 31, 2020), arises from a proposed
merger between the Company and affiliates of Blackstone
Infrastructure Partners.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the other
public holders of the common stock of Tallgrass Energy, LP ("TGE"
or the "Partnership") against the Partnership and the members of
Tallgrass Energy GP, LLC's ("TGE GP") board of directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the proposed merger between TGE and affiliates of Blackstone
Infrastructure Partners together with affiliates of Enagas, GIC,
NPS and USS (collectively, "Blackstone").
On December 16, 2019, the Board caused the Partnership to enter
into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the
Partnership's shareholders stand to receive $22.45 in cash for each
Class A share representing a limited partner interest of TGE they
own.
On January 21, 2020, in order to convince TGE shareholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff
alleges. The Plaintiff contends that the materially incomplete and
misleading preliminary proxy violates both Regulation G and SEC
Rule 14a-9, each of which constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Partnership's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed
to disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading, the Plaintiff contends. In particular, the Plaintiff
avers, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the
Partnership that were prepared by the Partnership and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that TGE shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation
analyses conducted by TGE's financial advisor, Evercore Group
L.L.C. in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is
fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.
The Plaintiff, a holder of TGE common stock, contends that it is
imperative that the material information that has been omitted from
the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the
Partnership's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding
the Proposed Transaction.
TGE is a limited partnership that owns, operates, acquires and
develops midstream energy assets in North America.
Enagas is a leading international energy company with 50 years'
experience. GIC is a leading global investment firm established in
1981 to manage Singapore's foreign reserves. NPS is a public
pension fund in South Korea with assets under management of KRW
714.3 trillion ($620 billion) as at September 30, 2019. USS is the
corporate trustee of one of the largest private sector pension
funds in the UK with assets under management of GBP68 billion as at
31 March 2019 and over 400,000 members across more than 350
universities and other higher education and associated institutions
in the UK.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 482-3182
Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 983-9330
Fax: (212) 983-9331
Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
TEXAS: Court Dismisses Class Claims in Hoffman Prisoner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRED HOFFMAN, III, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERY RICHARDSON,
et al., Defendants, Civil No. 2:18-CV-00328 (S.D. Tex.), Judge
Hilda Tagle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Corpus Christi Division, adopted Magistrate Judge Jason B.
Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") to Dismiss Certain
Claims and to Retain Case.
The Court is in receipt of Magistrate Judge Libby's M&R to Dismiss
Certain Claims and to Retain Case. It is also in receipt of
Plaintiff Hoffman's Objections and Memorandum in Response.
Hoffman is imprisoned in the state of Texas and is proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis. He filed the prisoner civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In his complaint, Hoffman
named Assistant Warden Corey Furr, Correctional Officer Felix
Anazor, Correctional Officer Vichente Martinez, Sergeant Doroteo
Fonseca and Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") Director
Lorie Davis.
Hoffman claims the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to
his serious seizure condition with strobe flashlights and by
causing him sleep deprivation, he additionally alleges he was
subject to retaliation. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
regarding the use of strobe flashlights by TDCJ staff. Hoffman
also seeks to represent other similarly situated inmates.
Magistrate Judge Libby issued his M&R on Dec. 13, 2018 as a
frivolousness screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform
Act. After extensive review of the complaint and statement of the
relevant legal standards, Magistrate Judge Libby recommends
retaining deliberate indifference claims against Furr in his
official capacity for injunctive relief. Magistrate Judge further
recommends that the Plaintiff's request to proceed as a class
action be denied and that the Plaintiff's remaining claims against
all the Defendants be dismissed.
Hoffman objects to the recommendation primarily on three grounds:
(1) Other Defendants are necessary to the litigation and should not
be dismissed; 2) It is improper to dismiss his retaliation claim;
3) The Plaintiff's request to proceed as class action is valid
because other inmates plan on joining the litigation.
Judge Tagle holds that Hoffman's objections to dismissing other
parties who allegedly cause him harm are understandable but not
necessary. The equitable powers of trial courts are broad and
flexible and can be shaped to the necessities of a particular case.
As the Magistrate Judge has already indicated, if an injunction is
found to be warranted, the best person to effect that injunction
can be substituted in place of Furr. Judge Tagle overrules
Hoffman's objections regarding the Defendants and adopts the M&R's
recommendation to retain the deliberate indifference claims.
Regarding retaliation, Judge Tagle finds that Hoffman's complaint
combines retaliation claims with the indifference allegations so
that the indifference effectively jumpstarts a separate retaliation
claim. Such allegations are purely conclusory and accordingly
Judge Tagle overrules Hoffman's objection and adopts the M&Rs
recommendation to dismiss the retaliation claim.
Finally, Hoffman objects to the recommended dismissal of his class
claims and argues he has shown the existence of similarly situated
plaintiffs who would join this suit. The Plaintiff is not seeking
to represent other inmates who are similarly situated to him, but
merely filed suit stating he was filing on behalf of others
similarly likewise situated to that of the Plaintiff, because other
inmates on the McConnell Unit plan on joining the lawsuit.
Pro se plaintiffs generally may not serve as class counsel because
they are ill-suited to protect the interests of a class, the Court
notes. Hoffman as yet has not argued for the permissive joinder of
parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Accordingly,
Judge Tagle overrules Hoffman's objections and adopts the M&R's
recommendation to dismiss the class claims.
After independently reviewing the filings, the record, applicable
law, and for the foregoing reasons, Judge Tagle adopted the M&R,
and overruled the Plaintiff's objections.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/u61pOx from Leagle.com.
Fred Hoffman, III, Plaintiff, pro se.
Warden Jeffery Richardson, Defendant, represented by Melissa Ann
Russo, Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense
Division.
TFS DINING: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Heath Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Heath, aka Hazel/Pepper, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TFS DINING, LLC, D/B/A YELLOW ROSE;
RPM DINING, LLC; JON PERSINGER AND KENNY DOE, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-00119-LY (W.D. Tex., Feb. 3, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for damages resulting from the Defendants evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips.
The Plaintiff alleges that she was denied minimum wage payments and
denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify her
and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." She
adds that the Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped
employees violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision.
The Plaintiff worked as a dancer for the Defendants in January 2019
through March 2019.
The Defendants own and operate a strip club named YELLOW ROSE.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
- and -
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
TRANS UNION: Lynn Sues Over Practices That Violate FCRA & NY FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Lynn, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. TRANS UNION, LLC, CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
CAPITAL ONE, N.A. AND CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Case No.
1:20-cv-00549 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks redress for the
Defendants' illegal practices, which violate the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The FCRA and NY FCRA prohibit furnishers of credit information to
falsely and inaccurately report consumers' credit information to
credit reporting agencies.
The Plaintiff disputed erroneous tradelines associated with a
Capital One account and a Chapter 7, U.S. Bankruptcy Court account
that appeared on his credit report directly with Trans Union, LLC
in November 2019. Thereafter, Trans Union, LLC notified the
Plaintiff that it had initiated an investigation into the said
disputes. Trans Union's investigation did not resolve the disputes
and the Plaintiff subsequently filed a statement of dispute with
Trans Union in December 2019 regarding both the Capital One and
Chapter 7 accounts.
The Plaintiff obtained his consumer credit report from Trans Union,
LLC at the end of 2019 and found that Trans Union, LLC had not
included the Plaintiff's statements of dispute in the credit
report. Subsequent to Trans Union, LLC's receipt of the Plaintiff's
statement of dispute, Trans Union, LLC issued consumer reports
without in any way indicating to the users of the reports that
certain information contained therein was disputed by the Plaintiff
and failed to include a copy of the Plaintiff's statement of
dispute. Trans Union, LLC intentionally failed to include the
statement of dispute with later copies of the Plaintiff's consumer
reports, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff, a consumer and a citizen of the State of New York,
contends that the Defendants violated the FCRA, since he disputed
the accuracy of the information in his credit file and then
notified them of the said dispute. Despite having the dispute from
the Plaintiff regarding the said Chapter 7 Bankruptcy account,
Trans Union, LLC has completely abdicated its obligations to update
his credit report as necessary, the Plaintiff argues.
Trans Union, LLC is a Credit Reporting Agency that engages in the
business of maintaining and reporting consumer credit
information.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
TRANSUNION LLC: Improperly Prepares Credit Reports, Khaimov Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Khaimov, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC and TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00585-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant prepared and obtained credit reports concerning the
Plaintiff and class members for an impermissible purpose, in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Beginning September 2017, Transworld began regularly requesting
from Transunion the Plaintiff's credit report to assist them in
collecting a debt. Transworld continued to request, and Transunion
continued to provide them, a copy of the Plaintiff's credit report,
for the purpose of assisting them in collecting the debt for the
Driving Ticket.
Obtaining a consumer report without a permissible purpose violates
the consumer's right to privacy and a core purpose of the FCRA, the
Plaintiff contends. He asserts that Transunion, aware that
Transworld collects toll violations and other government debts,
failed to have a procedure in place to ensure that Transworld
would not be permitted to obtain his and the putative class members
credit reports for an impermissible purpose.
As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff has been
harmed, by the Defendants invading his privacy and sharing and
obtaining the Plaintiff's personal and private information, says
the complaint.
Plaintiff Ilya Khaimov is a resident of Queens County New York.
Transunion is one of the largest credit reporting agencies in the
United States and is engaged in the business of assembling and
disseminating credit reports concerning hundreds of millions of
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
- and -
Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Email: dan@cml.legal
UHS OF HARTGROVE: Kelley Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Kelley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. UHS OF HARTGROVE, INC. d/b/a HARTGROVE
HOSPITAL, Case No. 2020CH01380 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 3,
2020), is brought against the Defendant, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, to redress and curtail its unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and
proprietary biometric data.
Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation,
Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the
clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant
disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant have violated and
continues to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to:
properly inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by
BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and other
similarly-situated employees' fingerprints, as required by BIPA;
obtain a written release from the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated to collect, store, disseminate, or otherwise use their
fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and; and obtain consent from the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or
otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as
required by BIPA.
Plaintiff Clarence Kelley worked for Hartgrove as a Mental Health
Tech from August 2014 to March 2018.
Hartgrove, owns and operates a behavioral health care facility,
located in Cook County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Fax: (312) 233-1560
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
mshannon@stephanzouras.com
USM ACQUISITION: Underpays Part-time Employees, Bentley Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY BENTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USM ACQUISITION, LLC; PREMIER SURFACES
ACQUISITION, LLC; CUSTOM PREMIER SURFACES, INC.; PREMIER SURFACES
INC.; and CLIO HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00011
(W.D. Mich., Jan. 6, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday
pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective
terminations and failed to make 401(k) contributions and provide
them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits.
The Plaintiff Bentley was employed by the Defendant as part-time
employee.
USM Acquisition Corp produces metal components, valves, and
assemblies. USM Acquisition serves aerospace, fluid power and
hydraulics, military, defense, and oil and gas sectors in the State
of Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Philo, Esq.
Anthony D. Paris, Esq.
SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR
ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
4605 Cass Ave., 2nd Floor
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 993-4505
Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
tparis@sugarlaw.org
- and -
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM
182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433-8100
Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
- and -
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 581-5005
Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
VISKASE COMPANIES: 2 Classes of Workers Certified in Thomas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., conditionally certifies two groups of
employees in the lawsuit styled JAMIE THOMAS and ARGUSTER WILLIAMS,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v.
VISKASE COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00330-DPM (E.D. Ark.).
Viskase manufactures food packaging products. Plaintiffs Thomas
and Williams worked at the Viskase plant in Osceola. Thomas was
paid hourly, and Williams was a salaried shift supervisor. They
seek to conditionally certify two Fair Labor Standards Act
collectives--one for hourly paid staff and another for shift
supervisors--who worked at Viskase since November 2016.
Ms. Thomas says Viskase used a rounding system that led to her not
being paid for all the hours she worked, including some beyond
forty hours a week. Ms. Williams says that despite being salaried,
she was not exempt and not paid for hours she worked over forty per
week. Viskase says its rounding method complies with FLSA and Ms.
Williams was exempt; and it opposes any group action.
The Court conditionally certifies the two groups, but only for
employees at the Osceola plant. Viskase has other plants, and
Plaintiffs Thomas and Williams allege that Viskase used the same
pay policies in all of them.
"But Thomas and Williams only worked at the Osceola plant, and
their key allegations concern only that plant," Judge Marshall
opines. The two groups are:
* Group 1--All hourly paid workers at the Osceola plant
employed after 15 November 2016; and
* Group 2--All salaried shift supervisors at the Osceola plant
employed after 15 November 2016.
Judge Marshall notes that one notice for both groups will do. The
Court approves (in general) the proposed forms and overrules
Viskase's objections.
"But please make some changes to the proposal: update the group
definitions to account for the Osceola restriction; change any
instance of 'and/or' to 'or; delete the hyphen in 'hourly-paid'
every time that phrase appears; in the consent form for shift
supervisors, NQ 6-2 at 2, change 'an salaried shift supervisors' to
'a salaried shift supervisor'; and delete section (11) about
severance agreements," Judge Marshall wrote.
Judge Marshall also rules that Viskase must post notice in its
Osceola plant. Notice to group members by U.S. mail or text (at
group counsel's election) is fine. There's no need for notice by
e-mail, too. One follow-up by postcard or text is fine. If notice
is sent by mail, do not enclose the pleadings. Viskase does not
have to provide e-mail addresses, but it must provide all the other
contact information by February 18, 2020.
The opt-in period will close on May 26, 2020.[CC]
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Levine Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Levine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC. d/b/a
NATURAL GROCERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261 (D. Colo., Jan. 31, 2020),
is brought to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was required to work more
than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by the Defendant in
order to complete their job duties. However, in accordance with the
Defendant's policy, pattern, and/or practice, they were
misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation and were not
paid at the mandated rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff
overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or
more workweeks because the Defendant classifies them as exempt from
overtime, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Levine was employed by the Defendant as an "Assistant
Store Manager."
Natural Grocers owns and operates more than 150 grocery stores in
19 states, mainly throughout the Central and Western United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALEZ, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Phone: (970) 214-0562
Email: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com
- and -
Jason Conway, Esq.
CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 278-4782
Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com
VUUZLE MEDIA: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VUUZLE MEDIA CORP. d/b/a BOINK LIVE STREAMING LLC, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:20-cv-01069 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' illegal actions in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
According to the complaint, the Company used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Company's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Company did not
possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone.
The Plaintiff requested for the Company to stop calling the
Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from the Company, thus,
revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating
any established business relationship that had existed. Despite
this, the Plaintiff asserts, the Company continued to call the
Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of
the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.
Based on the Plaintiff's experiences of being called by the
Defendants after requesting they stop calling, the Defendants
failed to establish and implement reasonable practices and
procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in
violation of the regulations prescribed under the TCPA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County,
California.
VUUZLE MEDIA CORP. d/b/a BOINK LIVE STREAMING LLC is a social media
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
W.D. WRIGHT CONTRACTING: Underpays Technicians, Bailey Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W.D. WRIGHT CONTRACTING, INC.; and WRIGHT
TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00012-TSB (S.D.
Ohio, Jan. 6, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff Bailey was employed by the Defendants as technician.
W. D. Wright Contracting, Inc. was founded in 1977. The company's
line of business includes providing general contracting services
such as constructing water and sewer mains. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
- and -
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 715-8711
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
- and -
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Michael Groh, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
WAWA INC: Sills Sues in Pennsylvania Over Fraud-Related Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wawa, Inc. The case
is captioned as ANDREA SILLS, JOSEPH DIVITA, and CORINNE M. MULLEN,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WAWA,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00286-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Jan 15, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter.
The suit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.
Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas
stations located along the East Coast of the United States,
operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven E. Angstreich, Esq.
WEIR & PARTNERS
1339 Chestnut St., Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 665-8181
E-mail: sangstreich@weirpartners.com
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Thompson Suit Balks at Proposed Sale to Stryker
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V., GARY D. BLACKFORD, JOHN L.
MICLOT, ROBERT J. PALMISANO, DAVID D. STEVENS, ELIZABETH H.
WEATHERMAN, J. PATRICK MACKIN, KEVIN C. O'BOYLE, AMY S. PAUL,
RICHARD F. WALLMAN, STRYKER CORPORATION, and STRYKER B.V., Case No.
1:20-cv-00061-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 15, 2020), alleges violation of
the Securities Exchange act of 1934 arising from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Wright Medical will be acquired by
Stryker Corporation.
On November 4, 2019, Wright Medical's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Stryker.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Buyer commenced a
tender offer to purchase all of Wright Medical's outstanding common
stock for $30.75 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to
expire on February 27, 2020.
On December 13, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement
omits material financial information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation
Statement.
The disclosure of projected financial information is material
because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future
financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to
better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's
financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff is an owner of Wright Medical common stock.
Wright Medical is a global medical device company focused on
extremities and biologics products. The Individual Defendants are
directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
Email: gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Mararac Alleges Illegal Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANN MARARAC, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZIONS BANCORPORATION, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
37-2020-00005904-CU-OE-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.,
January 31, 2020) is a class and representative action brought
against Defendants for their alleged systemic illegal employment
practices, policies and customs.
Plaintiff has been a non-exempt, hourly employee of Defendant since
on or about February 5, 2015.
Zions Bancorporation, National Association is a business that
operated in California, including in San Diego County, California
and allegedly created and maintained employment policies, practices
and customs that deliberately disregard the rights of their
employees such as failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements to their employees; thereby Defendants willfully
violated the California Labor Code.
Aiming to seek appropriate penalties, Plaintiff brings this cause
of action on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees from January 22,
2019 through the present. [BN]
The Plaintiff and the Class is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Tel: (831) 531-4214
Fax: (831) 634-0333
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***