/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200420.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, April 20, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 79
Headlines
ALLIANCE RESOURCE: $4.5K Costs Awarded in Leeper WARN Act Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Romanov Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
ARGENT HOTEL: Majdoub Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
ATLANTA CHECK: Bostic Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Nixon Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BONFIRE ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Mouzoon Claims
BUCK MASON: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Alcazar Suit Says
BUSINESS CAPITAL: Weisberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
CANOPY ENERGY: Aussieker Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Lascano Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Faces Burr Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
CBS CORPORATION: Musiello Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
CCB CREDIT: Fernandez Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Moriarty Suit Moved to Dist. of Massachusetts
CHASE DENNIS: Samora Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
CIRCLE K STORES: Naffaa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
CLARIFAI INC: Stein Suit Removed to Northern District of Illinois
CODEFIED INC: Settlement in Armstrong TCPA Suit Gets Final Approval
COLLECTO INC: Hayes FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE: Davis Disputes Collection Letter
DOUGLAS COUNTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Miller Alleges
EAST COAST RESTAURANT: Ely Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible App
EVENFLO COMPANY: Kid Booster Seat Is Defective, Gladstone Alleges
EVENFLO COMPANY: Kid Booster Seat Is Defective, Hampton Alleges
FINANCIAL ASSET: Nicolas Sues in Florida Alleging FDCPA Violation
FITNESS EVOLUTION: Hunt Sues Alleging Unlawful Charging of Fees
FLIGHT SERVICES: Flores-Litman Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
FLORIDA PANTHERS: Mittenthal TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
FUEL FOR FIRE: Minor Files Suit in Northern Dist. of California
GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Lynn Civil Rights Suit Without Prejudice
GIANNINO'S LLC: Castro Sues Over Discrimination
GMP CARS COLLISION: Faces Moreno Suit in California Super. Court
ICONCEPT MD CONTACT: Kaufman Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
INDIANA PACKERS: Court Dismisses Second Amended O'Shea RICO Suit
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Dash Disputes Collection Letter
JLM DECORATING: Martinez Sues in N.Y. Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Kelley Asbestos Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
JP MORGAN: 11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Anderman FDCPA Suit
KELLY SERVICES: Larry Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
KLLM TRANSPORT: Appeals Ruling in Swales FLSA Suit to 5th Circuit
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss AMCA-Related Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Conditional Class Cert. Bid in "Mitchell" Denied
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend California Wage & Hour Suits
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Davis and Vargas Class Suit in Calif.
LABORATORY CORP: Kawa Orthodontics Suit Settled
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Store Staff Sues Over Unpaid Working Hours
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Store Staff Sues Over Unpaid Working Hours
LOWE'S HOME: Shortchanges Workers' Pay, Store Staff's Suit Says
LUXURY TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Langston Says
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Removed as Defendant in LeJeune Class Action
MDL 2804: Faces Ables Suit in Ohio Over Sale of Opioid Drugs
MDL 2804: Rock Ministries Suit Over Opioid Drugs Consolidated
MH SUB I LLC: Rattler FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Reetz Sues in W.D. Wisconsin Over FDCPA Violation
MOBILEONE LLC: Fails to Pay SMs' Overtime Wages, Hasbrook Claims
OFFICIAL PAYMENTS: Durrant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
PARADIES SHOPS: Luca Suit Over FACTA Breach Removed to E.D. Mich.
PBF HOLDING: Parties in Kendig Suit Reach Initial Settlement Pact
PENN COMMUNITY BANK: Dajti Claims Discrimination at Work
PEP BOYS MANNY: Zinnah Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
PINE CLUB: Church Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Unlawful Termination
POPULAR INC: Faces Golden Suit in Southern District of New York
RAILWORKS CORP: Faces Coleman Suit Over Massive Data Breach
REGAL CINEMAS: Thornton Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
RELIABLE COLLECTIONS: Reyes Sues in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
RESORT MARKETING: Dunlap Appeals Decision in Charvat Class Suit
ROHR INC: Morgan Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
ROSEWOOD RESOURCES: Edwards Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAMUEL SON & CO: Terrell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
SBS TRANSPORT: Stokes Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
SCOTT CREDIT: Faces Toth Suit Over Wrongful Overdraft & NSF Fees
SD&A TELESERVICES: Skulevold TCPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
SIERRA FOODS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Castellanos Says
SINGLETON FARMS: Fuller Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Bid for Writ of Mandamus in Trust Suit Denied
STAPLES INC: Bonahoom Sues in Northern District of Illinois
SUFFOLK FEDERAL: Watson Sues Over Multiple and Improper NSF Fees
TEHAMA LAW GROUP: Griego FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. California
TENNESSEE: Faces A.M.C. Suit in M.D. Tenn. Over Violation of ADA
THIS GROUP LLC: Thompson Sues Over Unwanted Solicitation Calls
THREAD SOCIETY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Claims
TRADITIONAL EQUITATION: Fielding Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED AIRLINES: Court Strikes Class Claims in DeFreitas ADA Suit
VALLE HOLDINGS: Faces Brown FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
VALLEY PIZZA: Hathaway Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Drivers
VECTOR GROUP: Parsons Class Action Still Stayed
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Massaro Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
VENATOR MATERIALS: Faces Macomb ERS Suit Over Share Price Drop
VERIZON MEDIA: Web Sites Not Accessible by Deaf, Suris Alleges
VIRGINIA MASON: Faces Androckitis Wage & Hour Suit in Washington
WALGREEN CO: Neuhoff Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
WALGREEN CO: Whittington Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
WEGMANS FOOD: Misrepresents Vanilla Cake Mix, Santiful Suit Says
WELLS FARGO: Ehrenfeld Appeals Order and Judgment in RESPA Suit
WELLS FARGO: Faces Cordon Suit Over Unlawful Collection Practices
ZOOM VIDEO: Faces Gens Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy Statutes
*********
ALLIANCE RESOURCE: $4.5K Costs Awarded in Leeper WARN Act Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL LEEPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P.,
and HAMILTON COUNTY COAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00250-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (i)
granted the Defendants' Bill of Costs, and (ii) overruled Leeper's
Objection to Defendants' Bill of Costs.
Carl Leeper brought the putative class action against the
Defendants alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). Specifically, Leeper
alleges that the Defendants failed to provide 60-days' notice to
182 workers of a Feb. 6, 2016 "mass layoff" at the Hamilton County
Coal Mine #1. On Dec. 17, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment.
On Dec. 31, 2018, the Defendants filed a Bill of Costs. On Jan. 2,
2019, the Court filed a Notice regarding the Taxation of Costs,
indicating that any objections were due on Jan. 16, 2019. On Jan.
16, 2019, Leeper filed an Objection to Defendants' Bill of Costs.
The Defendants filed a response on Jan. 31, 2019.
The costs in dispute that the Defendants seek include $269 to cover
Fees for Service of Summons and Subpoena for the deposition of
Hulett Guill, Jr., as well as a witness fee of $86.33. Leeper
argues that the Defendants are not able to recover costs related to
their attempts to depose Guill because the deposition did not take
place, and neither the propriety nor the necessity of the
deposition sought by Defendants had been established. In response,
the Defendants assert that Guill's testimony bore directly on the
question of whether putative class members in Leeper's action
experienced an "employment loss" within the meaning of the WARN
Act. They further argue that a deposition or witness fees may be
"reasonably necessary" even if the deposition does not ultimately
take place.
Judge Rosenstengel agrees with the Defendants. With regard to
deposition transcripts, it is well established in the Seventh
Circuit that the expenses of discovery depositions shown to be
reasonably necessary to the case are recoverable even if the
depositions are not used as evidence at trial. The introduction of
a deposition at trial is not a prerequisite for finding that it was
necessary to take the deposition, as long as the deposition was not
"purely investigative in nature.
In the case, Guill is the named Plaintiff in a putative class
action arising from the same factual background as the instant
Leeper action. The Defendants assert that his testimony was
directly related to class certification in the Leeper action.
Further, courts have previously awarded "no-show" deposition costs,
as these are incidental expenses that fall within 28 U.S.C.A.
Section 1920. Additionally, witness fees are clearly outlined as
recoverable costs in 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1920. Because she cannot
say that these depositions were merely investigatory in nature and
similar costs have been awarded previously, the Court holds that
the Defendants are allowed these costs, and it overruled the
objection.
For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel granted the Defendants' Bill
of Costs, overruled Leeper's Objection to Defendants' Bill of
Costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to tax costs against Leeper
in the amount of $4,465.68.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/8rGWrp from Leagle.com.
Carl Leeper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. Green --
kevin@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C., Thomas J.
Lech, Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C., Kreig Blakley Taylor,
Culley, Feist, Kuppart & Taylor, LLC, Thomas C. Horscroft,
Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC & Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Goldenberg
Heller & Antognoli PC.
Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. & Hamilton County Coal, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Richard Garrett Griffith, Stoll, Keenon
et al., Elizabeth Smith Muyskens -- elizabeth.muyskens@skofirm.com
-- Stoll, Keenon et al. & Kif Harward Skidmore, Stoll, Keenon et
al.
Hulett Guill, Jr., Interested Party, represented by Joseph Kenney,
Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice & Thomas A. Brodnik --
tbrodnik@dtblegal.com -- Doninger Tuohy & Bailey LLP.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Romanov Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LUBEN ROMANOV, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV02837 (Filed Jan. 23, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 23, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02692 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to provide regular pay/minimum wages, to
provide overtime premium pay, and to provide meal periods and/or
meal period premium pay. The Plaintiff brought this putative class
action on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees, who
worked for Amazon in California as "Delivery Associates."
Amazon Services offers the Web service platforms that Amazon
offers.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Max Fischer, Esq.
Aimee Mackay, Esq.
Daniel R. Rodriguez, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: 213 612 2500
Facsmile: 213 612 2501
E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com
daniel.rodriguez@morganlewis.com
ARGENT HOTEL: Majdoub Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KHAWLA MAJDOUB, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARGENT HOTEL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a limited liability company; HIGHGATE HOTELS,
L.P., a limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. CGC-20-582921 (Filed Feb. 13, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 24, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-02065 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the putative class members for all hours worked,
including minimum, straight time, and overtime wages in violation
of the California Labor Code.
The Defendants are real estate investment and hospitality
management company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
William C. Sung, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213.250.1800
Facsimile: 213.250.7900
E-Mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
William.Sung@lewisbrisbois.com
ATLANTA CHECK: Bostic Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON BOSTIC, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ATLANTA CHECK CASHERS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01306-AT
(N.D. Ga., March 25, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has failed
to pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act by only paying a purported salary to the Plaintiff with no
additional overtime compensation for overtime hours worked.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's apparent
misclassification of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees has cost these employees thousands of dollars in unpaid
overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from March 2018 to December
2019 as a purported salary store manager.
The Defendant is a Georgia Corporation that operates numerous check
cashing locations throughout the Southeastern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adeash Lakraj, Esq.
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 965-1909
E-mail: alakraj@forthepeople.com
RMorgan@forthepeople.com
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Nixon Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Nixon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Berkshire
Hathaway Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02253 (S.D. N.Y., March
13, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Star Furniture, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, is a home
furniture retailer. It owns, operates, manages and controls the
website, www.starfurniture.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and
claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC.
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Fax: (718) 865-0943
Email: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com
BONFIRE ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Mouzoon Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEN MOUZOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BONFIRE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00638-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal., March 24, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 by failing to pay minimum wages and to
provide meal and rest to bartenders.
The Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the FLSA and the
California Labor Code, including unpaid wages, penalties, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant intentionally
misclassified him and all other members of the Collective as
independent contractors in order to willfully refuse to pay a
minimum wage for all hours worked.
The Defendant provides beverage services for festivals in
California, including Winter Wondergrass.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Audren Tawaji, Esq.
THE TAWAJI LAW OFFICE
P.O. Box 3480
Truckee, CA 96161
Telephone: (516) 443-4691
E-mail: AudrenTawaji@TheTawajiLawOffice.com
- and -
Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 489-7004
E-mail: enafisi@classlawdc.com
BUCK MASON: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Alcazar Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ALCAZAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BUCK MASON, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-02012-JST (N.D. Cal., March 23,
2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendants'
Website, https://www.buckmason.com/, is not equally accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
Buck Mason is a Los Angeles-based menswear brand specializing in
modern American classics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
BUSINESS CAPITAL: Weisberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WEISBERG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. BUSINESS CAPITAL CONSULTANTS CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-02742 (C.D.
Cal., March 24, 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.
Mr. Weisberg brings this class action lawsuit for damages resulting
from the unlawful actions of the Defendant by willfully placed
unsolicited automated text messages to him using an automatic
telephone dialing system without prior express written consent.
BCC is a financial company offering loan/credit solutions to
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:5
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: 800 400 6808
Facsimile: 800 520 5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
yana@kazlg.com
CANOPY ENERGY: Aussieker Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK AUSSIEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CANOPY ENERGY CALIFORNIA, a California corporation,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02607 (C.D. Cal., March 19, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by
sending prerecorded voice telemarketing calls to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that Canopy Energy made prerecorded voice
telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and other putative class
members without their consent using an artificial voice.
The Plaintiff and putative class members never consented to receive
these calls. Because prerecorded voice marketing campaigns
generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of
potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons, who
received illegal robocalls from or on behalf of the Defendant.
Canopy Energy offers residential, government and commercial solar
installations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Lascano Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE LASCANO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARDINAL
LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a North Carolina Corporation and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV07007 (Filed Feb. 24,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on March 25, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02760 to the proceeding.
In his original complaint, the Plaintiff alleged causes of action
against the Defendants for retaliation and wrongful termination in
violation of public policy; and retaliation and discipline and/or
discharge in violation of California Labor Code.
Cardinal Logistics provides transportation and logistic services.
The Company offers contract carriage, bulk transport, jobsite
delivery, life science logistics, temperature controlled carriers,
supply chain consulting, warehousing, and inventory management
services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
Pavneet Singh Mac, Esq.
NOSSAMAN LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213 612 7800
Facsimile: 213 612 7801
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Faces Burr Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN A. BURR, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, doing business as
CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE, Case No. 105183153 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough
Cty., March 19, 2020), asserts more than $30,000 in claim against
the Defendant resulting from its alleged breach of contract.
The Defendant operated and did business as Carnival Cruise Line,
which contracted for comedy entertainers on at least 25 cruise
ships conducting business in Hillsborough County, Florida.
The Plaintiff and all those similarly situated were contracted to
perform as comedians on the Defendant's cruise lines between March
14 and March 28, 2020.
The Plaintiff contends that Carnival has breached the contract with
the comedians by failing to pay for the services for which it
previously contracted for and subsequently canceled with less than
two weeks' notice. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid compensation and
incidentals and benefits; pre and post judgment interest;
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees under Fla. Stat. Section
488.08.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C
Clearwater, FL 33765
Telephone: (727) 441-4947
Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com
Jackie@employeerights.com
mnadeau@employeerights.com
Jackie@employeerights.com
CBS CORPORATION: Musiello Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELYN MUSIELLO and other
employees similarly situated v. CBS CORPORATION, CBS RADIO INC.,
CBS SPORTS RADIO NETWORK INC., ENTERCOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP., DAN
TAYLOR, MARGARET MARION, ABC CORPORATIONS "1-5" AND JOHN DOES
"1-10", Case No. 22387/2020E (Filed Feb. 18, 2020), was removed
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of
Bronx to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on March 25, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02569 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts class-wide action alleging sex-based
disparate treatment discrimination under the New York State Human
Rights Law. The Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated female employees relief, including
declaratory judgment that the Defendants' acts, policies, practices
and procedures violated her rights and those female employees
similarly situated.
CBS is an American English-language commercial broadcast television
and radio network that is the flagship property of the CBS
Entertainment Group division of ViacomCBS.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Chelsea L. Conanan, Esq.
Liliya P. Kramer, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Telephone: (212) 309-6000
Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
E-mail: Chelsea.Conanan@morganlewis.com
Liliya.Kramer@morganlewis.com
- and -
Michael L. Banks, Esq.
W. John Lee, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
E-mail: Michael.Banks@morganlewis.com
W.John.Lee@morganlewis.com
CCB CREDIT: Fernandez Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCB Credit Services,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cindy Fernandez, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. CCB
Credit Services, Inc., Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02229 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
CCB Credit Services, Inc., provides accounts receivable management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Moriarty Suit Moved to Dist. of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN MORIARTY,
Individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Case No.
2079CV00091 (Filed Feb. 7, 2020), was removed from the
Massachusetts Superior Court, Hampden County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 23, 2020.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-10572-MGM to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's failure to pay wages under
the Massachusetts Wage Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant
reduced her auto allowance by treating it as taxable wages. She
alleges that she was "paid an auto allowance of $225 per week" but
that, after taxes, she took home $156.47 per week, an alleged
weekly reduction of $68.53.
Cellco, doing business as Verizon Wireless, is an American
telecommunications company, which offers wireless products and
services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jenna L. LaPointe, Esq
Tonya B. Braun, Esq.
JONES DAY
100 High Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1781
Telephone: (617) 960-3939
Facsimile: (617) 449-6999
E-mail: jlapointe@jonesday.com
tbraun@jonesday.com
CHASE DENNIS: Samora Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE SAMORA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved v. CHASE
DENNIS EMERGENCY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation;
TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV363241 (Filed Feb. 7, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on March 23, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-02027 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wages, to pay overtime wages,
and to provide required meal periods and rest periods. The
Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of all current and former
non-exempt employees of the Defendants in the State of California
at any time within the period beginning four years prior to the
filing of this action until the time it settles or proceeds to
final judgment.
Chase Dennis is a medical group health care provider in Barstow
California. TeamHealth offers careers for physicians plus hospital
management and staffing services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
Michael Afar, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: jbrophy@seyfarth.com
mafar@seyfarth.com
- and -
Timothy B. McConnell, Esq.
Ginette R. Brown, Esq.
BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
1700 Riverview Tower
900 S. Gay Street
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 521-2031
Facsimile: (866) 572-7631
E-mail: timothy.mcconnell@bassberry.com
ginette.brown@bassberry.com
CIRCLE K STORES: Naffaa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MOESES NAFFAA, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIRCLE K STORES,
INC., THE CIRCLE K CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
Case No. CIVDS1906590 (Filed March 1, 2019), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 23, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00623-WBS-DB to the proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime
compensation; to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; to provide
off-duty meal and rest breaks or premium pay in lieu thereof; and
to provide timely itemized wage statements.
The Defendants operate an international chain of convenience
stores.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Vince M. Verde, Esq.
Mark F. Lovell, Esq.
Graham M. Hoerauf, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
5 Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: 714-800-7900
Facsimile: 714-754-1298
E-mail: vince.verde@ogletree.com
mark.lovell@ogletree.com
graham.hoerauf@ogletree.com
CLARIFAI INC: Stein Suit Removed to Northern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Jordan Stein, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Clarifai, Inc., Case
No. 2020CH01810, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 23, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01937 to the proceeding. The suit demands $9.9 Million in
damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Sara L. Ellis.
Clarifai is an artificial intelligence company that specializes in
computer vision and uses machine learning and deep neural networks
to identify and analyze images and videos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith James Keogh, Esq.
Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
Theodore Herbert Kuyper, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com
tkuyper@keoghlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy Yongmee Cho, Esq.
Erika Anne Dirk, Esq.
Melissa Anne Siebert, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
111 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 704-7700
E-mail: eadirk@shb.com
masiebert@shb.com
CODEFIED INC: Settlement in Armstrong TCPA Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLIFFORD ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CODEFIED INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00550-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.),
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted Armstrong's (i) Motion for Final
Approval of the Class-Action Settlement, and (ii) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and a Service Award to Class
Representative.
Having read all of the papers filed in connection therewith, as
well as all of the evidence and argument submitted with respect to
the proposed Settlement, Judge Mendez finds that the proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and for purposes of the settlement
only, the Settlement Class consists of all individuals or entities
in the United States who, from March 28, 2015 to the date of the
Preliminary Approval Order, received one or more telephone calls or
texts concerning Codefied's (i.e., Housecall Pro's) goods or
services from or on behalf of Defendant.
The Settlement Administrator will perform the distribution to the
Settlement Class Members following the process set forth in the
Settlement Agreement without further order of the Court.
The Court finds that $5,000 is a fair and reasonable incentive
award because it comports with incentive awards made in other TCPA
class-action settlements. Accordingly, the Court approved that
amount as the Service Award and directed that it be paid pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Having considered the Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and considering the percentage of the
fund, the quality of representation provided and the results
obtained, as well as a number of other factors, the Class Counsel
is awarded attorneys' fees of $540,000 reimbursement of costs and
expenses of $13,930.08, representing fair and reasonable
compensation and reimbursement for the Class Counsel's efforts in
investigating, litigating and settling this action.
All payments of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to
the Class Counsel in the Action will be made from the Settlement
Fund, and the Released Parties will have no liability or
responsibility for the payment of the Class Counsel's attorneys'
fees or expenses except as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
Accordingly, the Court finally approved the proposed settlement as
reflected in the Settlement Agreement. Immediately upon entry of
the Final Judgment by the Clerk, the action will be closed
according to the Court's standard practices. The Parties are
directed to take all actions required under the terms and
provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
The Action (including all individual claims and Settlement Class
Member claims asserted therein) is dismissed on the merits and with
prejudice, without fees or costs to any Party, except as provided
in the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Rq56wA from Leagle.com.
Clifford Armstrong, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Fay Benedict
-- amanda@amandabenedict.com -- Law Office of Amanda Benedict, Avi
R. Kaufman -- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice,
Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman -- reckaufman@gmail.com -- Kaufman P.A. &
Stefan L. Coleman -- Lawofficesofstefancoleman@gmail.com -- Law
Offices of Stefan Coleman, PA, pro hac vice.
Codefied, Inc, Defendant, represented by Elyse D. Echtman --
eechtman@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro
hac
vice & Michael C. Weed -- mweed@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP.
COLLECTO INC: Hayes FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC HAYES, individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS
CCA, Case No. GD 20-2138 (Filed Feb. 7, 2020), was removed from the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March
23, 2020.
The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00411-MPK to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Collecto violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Collecto operates as a debt management and recovery resource
company. The Company offers receivables collection services for
banks, colleges and universities, student loan lenders, and
telecommunications companies.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jessica G. Lucas, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 577-7400
Facsimile: (412) 347-5461
E-mail: jlucas@grsm.com
DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE: Davis Disputes Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Davis, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Davis Miles McGuire Gardner, PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00575, (D. Ariz., March 19, 2020), seeks
statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses incurred in this action, including expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and other and further relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Davis Miles McGuire Gardner is a multi-disciplinary law firm with
corporate offices in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. On or about May
28, 2019, Defendant sent a written communication to Davis in
connection with an alleged debt. Said letter failed to advise Davis
that unless he, within thirty days after receipt of the notice,
disputed the validity of the Debt, or any portion thereof, the Debt
would be assumed to be valid by the debt collector, thus failing to
effectively provide him statutorily mandated disclosures to which
he was entitled. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel: (561) 826-5477
Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
DOUGLAS COUNTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Miller Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Miller and Zachary Akers, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, GA, Case No.
1:20-cv-01505-CAP (N.D. Ga., April 9, 2020), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving the
Plaintiffs of their rights to overtime compensation.
According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly adjusted the
timecard entries of the Plaintiffs to reflect only their scheduled
12-hour shift, and not the time each employee actually worked
thereby concealing the true number of hours worked. Despite
suffering and permitting the Plaintiffs to work in excess of the
statutory maximum of 86 hours in each 14-day cycle, the Defendant
has failed to pay the Plaintiffs at the required rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours.
The Defendant's actions in refusing to provide the Plaintiffs the
rights and protections provided under the FLSA are willful in that
the Defendant knew its pay practices with respect to those
employees was prohibited by the FLSA or, at the very least, showed
a reckless disregard for the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant in the positions of
"Correctional Officer" and "Deputy."
Douglas County, Georgia, is a County existing under the laws of the
State of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lance J. LoRusso, Esq.
LORUSSO LAW FIRM, P.C.
1827 Powers Ferry Road, SE
Building 8, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (770) 644-2378
Fax: (770) 644-2379
Email: lance@lorussolawfirm.com
EAST COAST RESTAURANT: Ely Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Ely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EAST COAST RESTAURANT & NIGHTCLUBS, LLC dba MILLENNIUM
CABARET OF BEDFORD/GOLD CLUB, a New Hampshire Limited Liability
Corporation; MATTHEW ROSE, an individual; ROSE ENTERPRISES, LLC, a
South Carolina Limited Liability Corporation; STEPHANIE ROSE
CUDNEY, an individual; MICHAEL L. ROSE, an individual; and DOES
1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00442 (D.N.H., April 9, 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, forced tip sharing, and illegally
absconding with the Plaintiff's tips and earned gratuities.
The Plaintiff alleges that she has been denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to
classify her and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors." The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum
wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the
FLSA. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.
Furthermore, the Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped
employees, violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in 2015
and worked into early 2018.
The Defendants own and operate a strip club now named Millennium
Cabaret.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard Roever, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD ROEVER, P.C.
83 Clinton Street
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 224-5700
Email: howardr@roever-law.com
- and -
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible App
------------------------------------------------------------
Windy Lucius, on behalf of herself and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-21541-FAM (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by offering
and maintaining a mobile application that is not fully accessible
and independently usable by visually impaired consumers.
A mobile application is software that is intended to run on mobile
devices, such as phones or tablet computers.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's app does not properly
interact with Apple's assistive technology in a manner that will
allow the blind and visually impaired to enjoy the app, nor does it
provide other means to accommodate the blind and visually impaired.
The Plaintiff has downloaded and attempted to patronize the
Defendant's app in the past and intends to continue to make further
attempts to patronize the Defendant's app. However, unless the
Defendant is required to eliminate the access barriers at issue and
required to change its policies so that access barriers do not
reoccur on the Defendant's app, the Plaintiff will continue to be
denied full and equal access to the app as described and will be
deterred from fully using the Defendant's app or rentals at the
physical locations.
The Plaintiff is blind and has been blind for the past nine years.
The Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration
and humiliation as the result of the discriminatory conditions
present at the Defendant's app, says the complaint.
The Defendant owns, operates and controls an app from which it
rents cars to the public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: 305-351-2014
Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com
EVENFLO COMPANY: Kid Booster Seat Is Defective, Gladstone Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGETTE GLADSTONE, ANDREW GLADSTONE, KAREN SANCHEZ, and TERESA
MUGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00118-WHR (S.D. Ohio, March
25, 2020), seeks to put an end to Evenflo's alleged improper
marketing of Big Kid Booster, and sales tactics of putting profits
over the safety of American children.
According to the complaint, this class action is a direct
consequence of Evenflo's pioneering efforts in child seat safety
testing. Starting in 2008, Evenflo advertised its Big Kid booster
seat to parents with the claim that the Big Kid was tested for side
impact crashes. Evenflo could make that claim only by exploiting a
regulatory oversight. Because there was no testing standard for
side-impact crashes booster seats, only a standard for frontal
impacts, Evenflo instituted its own superficial testing regime, the
Plaintiffs aver.
The Plaintiffs contend that Evenflo's testing protocol was not
concerned with the safety of the children that would be using the
Big Kid, but with the marketability of such crash testing. Evenflo,
therefore, designed the side-impact test in a way that it was
practically impossible for the Big Kid to fail.
Evenflo was first formed in the 1920s as a manufacturer of products
related to baby feeding. For many years, Evenflo produced baby
bottles, nipples, and other related accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
Kevin C. Hulick, Esq.
SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-3232
Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
khulick@spanglaw.com
- and -
Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
Michael Ram, Esq.
Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
Marie Appel, Esq.
Glenn Danas, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 349-8500
Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
mram@robinskaplan.com
asheanin@robinskaplan.com
mappel@robinskaplan.com
gdanas@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
EVENFLO COMPANY: Kid Booster Seat Is Defective, Hampton Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00610-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal., March 19, 2020), seeks to put an
end to Evenflo's alleged improper marketing of Big Kid Booster, and
sales tactics of putting profits over the safety of American
children.
In the early 2000s and in order to address the need for a vehicular
safety device for young children too big for an infant car seat,
but still too small or too young to properly fit or to stay in a
seat belt, companies began selling booster seats, which elevated
children so that the automobile seat belts fit more securely.
According to the complaint, in the highly competitive market for
booster seats, Evenflo sells the Big Kid Booster Seat (Big Kid
Booster), a seat cushion used to elevate children sitting in
automobiles. Evenflo labels and markets the Big Kid Booster in the
United States as "safe" for children as light as 30 pounds and as
young as three years old. Evenflo boasts that the Big Kid Booster
is the "the best way to minimize injuries to your child" and
claimed that it would "greatly reduce the risk of serious injury to
your child in a crash." But according to recently published
reports, Evenflo has known since at least 2008 if not earlier that
its Big Kid Booster is not safe for children under forty pounds and
four years of age nor does it appreciably reduce the risk of
serious injury or death from side-impact accidents, the Plaintiff
avers.
Evenflo designed its own side-impact tests and yet failed even
those lax standards. Recently released video from 2008 testing
shows that Evenflo's tests unmistakably demonstrated that a child
seated in its booster could be in grave danger in such a crash.
Evenflo's tests were not comparable to federal government tests,
which simulate accidents at higher speeds and involving impacts
into external objects; Evenflo's tests merely simulated rapid
deceleration, says the complaint.
Evenflo was first formed in the 1920s as a manufacturer of products
related to baby feeding. For many years, Evenflo produced baby
bottles, nipples, and other related accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: 919-600-5000
Facsimile: 919-600-5035
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
martha@wbmllp.com
harper@wbmllp.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: 865-247-0080
Facsimile: 865-522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
FINANCIAL ASSET: Nicolas Sues in Florida Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Asset
Management Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Nicolas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-21524-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. (FAMS) is an account
recovery solutions provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
FITNESS EVOLUTION: Hunt Sues Alleging Unlawful Charging of Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hunt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. FITNESS EVOLUTION, INC. d/b/a FIT REPUBLIC, Case No.
4:20-cv-02461 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2020), seeks relief on behalf
of all of the Defendant's customers in California that have paid or
were charged fees while its gyms were closed.
The Plaintiff seeks relief for the Defendant's violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, for breach of express warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, and breach of contract.
On March 18, 2020, the Defendant closed all of its Fit Republic
gyms nationwide, including the Fit Republic gym in Tracy, CA that
the Plaintiff attended. However, on March 3, 2020, the Defendant
charged the Plaintiff's debit card in the full amount of his
month-to-month membership and his annual member charge--$88.99. The
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has retained the full amount
of his membership even though he does not have access to any of its
gyms.
Further, the Defendant has not refunded the Plaintiff any part of
his monthly fee for March 18 through April 3, 2020, when the
Defendant's gyms were closed. The Plaintiff signed up for the
Defendant's month-to-month membership with the belief and on the
basis that he would have unlimited access to the Defendant's gyms.
The Plaintiff would not have paid for the membership, or would not
have paid for it on the same terms, had he known that he would not
have access to any of the Defendant's gyms. The Plaintiff continues
to face imminent harm, as the Defendant retains customers monthly
fees while all of its gyms remain closed, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Hunt is a current member at the Defendant's Fit Republic
gyms, paying $49.99 per month on a month-to-month basis.
The Defendant is the operator of over 30 gyms nationwide, including
20+ gyms in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, 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
ykrivoshey@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: scott@bursor.com
FLIGHT SERVICES: Flores-Litman Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariam Flores-Litman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Flight Services and Systems LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00346 (W.D. Tex., March 19, 2020), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of
illegally withholding tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Flight Services and Systems operates an aviation services company
where Flores-Litman were employed as an operations manager. She
claims that she was denied overtime premiums for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
FLORIDA PANTHERS: Mittenthal TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Eric Mittenthal, Anita Jairam, and Kevin Hillow,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FLORIDA PANTHERS HOCKEY CLUB, LTD, a Florida limited partnership;
PHGP LLC, a Florida limited liability company; JAKE SCHREIBER, an
individual; DAVID BRUNSON, an individual, Case No. CACE-20-004769,
was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on April 9, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-60734-RKA.
The Plaintiffs asserts a cause of action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for the Defendants' allegedly intrusive
telephone marketing strategies.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward M. Mullins, Esq.
Brandon T. White, Esq.
Nicole Langesfeld, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 9th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 786.747.0203
Fax: 786.747.0299
Email: emullins@reedsmith.com
bwhite@reedsmith.com
nlangesfeld@reedsmith.com
FUEL FOR FIRE: Minor Files Suit in Northern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fuel For Fire, Inc.
The case is styled as Sherris Minor, as an individual, on behalf of
herself, the general public and those similarly situated v. Fuel
For Fire, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-02437-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 9,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.
Fuel for Fire provides athletes with a cleaner food alternative for
enhancing the performance in everything they do.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Gutride, Esq.
Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 789-6390
Fax: (415) 449-6469
Email: adam@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
seth@gutridesafier.com
- and -
Hayley A Reynolds, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
70 W. Hedding Street
East Wing, Ninth Floor
San Jose, CA 95110-1705
Phone: (408) 299-5900
Email: hayley.reynolds@cco.sccgov.org
GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Lynn Civil Rights Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Randall Hall of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia, Statesboro Division, dismissed the case,
RICHARD LYNN, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY C. WARD, Commissioner; TERENCE
KILPATRICK, Deputy Warden; and DEPUTY WARDEN BROWN, Defendants,
Case No. CV 619-103 (S.D. Ga.), without prejudice.
After a careful, de novo review of the file, Judge Hall concurs
with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which
objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissing the case without prejudice because the Plaintiff
provided dishonest information about his filing history. The
Plaintiff does not deny he filed the undisclosed cases identified
by the Magistrate Judge, but he asks that the Court excuse his
omissions. Judge Hall declines to do so.
First, the Plaintiff concedes one of his undisclosed cases counts
as a strike under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g), but he claims his
dishonesty concerning that case is "irrelevant" because he has not
accumulated three strikes that would bar him from proceeding in
forma pauperis. The Plaintiff's failure to disclose cases,
regardless of whether one such case counts as a strike, is relevant
to the analysis concerning his dishonesty.
Second, the Plaintiff's arguments concerning the dates of his
undisclosed cases in relation to his release from prison on some
undisclosed date in late 2013 and loss of resultant paperwork ring
hollow in light of the fact he was able to disclose a case from
2012 and 2013.
Third, his attempt to distinguish the cases cited in the Report and
Recommendation as providing more stringent warnings about possible
dismissal for dishonesty fails not only because the complaint form
unambiguously directs disclosure of prior cases and strikes, but
also because he signed his complaint under penalty of perjury.
Judge Hall finds no basis to depart from long-settled law that bad
faith litigiousness or manipulative tactics warrants dismissal
without prejudice.
Judge Hall denied the Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint to
include disclosure of the cases cited in the Report and
Recommendation, because it would circumvent the Court's ability to
manage its docket by imposing sanctions for providing false
information about prior filing history. Likewise, he denied as
moot the request for appointment of the counsel to assist the
Plaintiff with pursing certification of the case as a class action,
because the case is due to be dismissed in its entirety.
Accordingly, Judge Hall overruled all of the Plaintiff's objections
and adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
as his Opinion. Therefore, Judge Hall dismissed the case without
prejudice as a sanction for the Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial
process, denied as moot the motions for injunctive relief and
certification of a class action, and closed the civil action.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/h4Qh9m from Leagle.com.
GIANNINO'S LLC: Castro Sues Over Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------
Robinson A. Castro, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Giannino's LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60559,
(S.D. Fla., March 13, 2020), seeks permanent injunction enjoining
Giannino's from engaging in discriminatory practice in violation of
the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, compensatory, restitutionary
and punitive damages including back pay, front pay, liquidated
damages, any employee welfare and retirement benefits, all
reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with
this action and any other and further relief.
Giannino's operates as Dal Contadino Trattoria, an Italian
restaurant located at 2775 East Oakland Park Blvd., Fort
Lauderdale, where Castro worked as a line cook. Castro claims to
have endured hostile discriminatory treatment arising from his
being from the Dominican Republic. He was terminated on June 6,
2019. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GMP CARS COLLISION: Faces Moreno Suit in California Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GMP Cars Collision
San Francisco, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as JOSE MORENO, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF
OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC v. GMP CARS COLLISION SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; GMP CARS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case
No. CGC20583974 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Mar 24, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong.
A case management conference will be held on Aug. 26, 2020.
GMP Cars is an automotive services group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman , Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr., Ste. 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
E-mail: roman@OLFLA.com
ICONCEPT MD CONTACT: Kaufman Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kaufman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ICONCEPT MD CONTACT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No.
3:20-cv-00690-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 10, 2020), arises from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.
ICONCEPT, on behalf of Great Destinations, called the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone using an automated telephone dialing system
(ATDS) in attempts to book an appointment for Mr. Kaufman to attend
a timeshare presentation at Great Destinations' showroom in
Ontario, CA. The Plaintiff says he did not have a business
relationship with either the Defendant or Great Destinations. At no
time did the Plaintiff provide his current cellular telephone
number to the Defendant or Great Destinations through any medium.
The Plaintiff's telephone number was on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry.
Through the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff suffered an invasion
of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically
addressed and protected by the TCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is citizen and resident of the State of California,
County of San Diego.
The Defendant is contracted by various entities in the travel and
leisure industry, including Great Destinations, Inc., to conduct
outbound lead generation by way of telemarketing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex S. Madar, Esq.
MADAR LAW CORPORATION
14410 Via Venezia #1404,
San Diego, CA 92129-1666
Phone: (858) 299-5879
Fax: (619) 354-7281
Email: alex@madarlaw.net
INDIANA PACKERS: Court Dismisses Second Amended O'Shea RICO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph S. van Bokkelen of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division Lafayette, granted
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint in the
case, ANDREW O'SHEA, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JAMES HARDING, MARISOL MARTINEZ,
and RUBEN HERNANDEZ, Defendants, Cause No. 4:16-CV-15-JVB-JEM (N.D.
Ind.).
The Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Class Action Complaint on
April 26, 2017, alleging civil class action Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claims against Defendants,
who are employees of the Indiana Packers Corp. ("IPC"), which is a
meat processing plant in Delphi, Indiana. The Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants made false attestations on I-9 forms and accepted
false documents in hiring employees unauthorized to work in the
United States, thereby lowering the wages paid to IPC's hourly
production wage employees who are authorized to work in the United
States.
Martinez and Hernandez work in IPC's human Resources office and
report directly to Harding. They accepted, received, obtained, and
used fake or fraudulent immigration documents and lied on I-9 forms
in order to hire unauthorized workers hundreds (or thousands) of
times over the last four years at IPC. Harding knew of and
approved of Martinez's and Hernandez's actions.
IPC's labor market is approximately the area within a 50-mile
radius from IPC's plant in Delphi, Indiana. This includes the
Indiana counties of Jasper, Pulaski, Fulton, Benton, White,
Carroll, Cass, Miami, Warren, Tippecanoe, Clinton, Howard, Tipton,
Montgomery, and Boone. IPC employs 2,500 to 3,000 workers. The
typical IPC production worker is a member of the
"drop-out-plus-one" ("DOPO") workforce, that is, a high school
dropout with one or more of the following: an arrest record, a
recent physical injury, or an unstable work history. Many
employers will not hire such a person, and IPC is the largest
employer in the labor market that will hire such a person. There
are approximately 10,327 DOPO workers in IPC's labor market, and
IPC employs approximately 29% of these DOPO workers. Approximately
30% of the jobs available to high school dropouts in the labor
market require skills beyond those required by IPC. Because a
typical IPC worker is not suited to these 30% of the jobs, IPC's
share of the relevant employment is 41%. Additionally, the other
employers tend to be small and searching for job openings is
difficult for the DOPO workers.
Because so many unauthorized workers were employed by IPC, the
members of the putative class received a lower wage than they would
have if IPC had not hired unauthorized workers. IPC's size and the
nature of the labor market for members of the putative class "tied"
the class members to their jobs at IPC and gave IPC market power.
The Plaintiff is a DOPO worker, and he accepted a job at IPC in
2013 for approximately $10.50 per hour. He worked for
approximately 10 months after being hired and worked for a second
time in 2014 for several months, achieving a pay rate of
approximately $10.85 at the highest. The average wage for
full-time DOPO employees in the IPC labor market is $13.40.
The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Harding, Martinez, and
Hernandez on May 31, 2017. O'Shea filed a response on June 23,
2017, and the Defendants filed a reply on July 14, 2017.
The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiff does not have
standing to bring his claims. The "by reason of" element of RICO
standing requires the RICO violation to be both a but-for and a
proximate cause of the RICO plaintiff's injury. The Defendants
assert that the alleged RICO violations are not a proximate cause
of the Plaintiff's injury.
Judge van Bokkelen finds that the alleged violation is false
attestations on I-9 forms, which is an act against the government.
The alleged injury is depressed wages paid to the Plaintiff. These
false attestations may streamline the process of hiring
unauthorized workers, which may in turn have an effect on the wages
IPC pays to all of its employees. However, the required direct
connection is lacking between the false attestations and the
Plaintiff's alleged injury. Without proximate cause, the Plaintiff
lacks standing, and his complaint is dismissed.
The parties also dispute whether Plaintiff has stated an injury to
his business or property as required for RICO standing. The Court,
as it did previously, assumes without deciding that the Plaintiff's
alleged damages are compensable under RICO. As before, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to
support his alleged damages. Because Plaintiff has failed to
allege an appropriate benchmark wage, the Plaintiff has not clearly
and definitely pleaded that he suffered injury to his business or
property.
Based on the foregoing, Judge van Bokkelen granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, and dismissed the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for lack of standing.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/R7K4jl from Leagle.com.
Andrew O'Shea, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Howard W. Foster --
hfoster@fosterpc.com -- Foster PC, pro hac vice, Matthew A. Galin,
Foster PC, pro hac vice & Susannah M. Hall-Justice, Hall-Justice
Law Firm.
James Harding & Marisol Martinez, Defendants, represented by Brian
E. Casey -- brian.casey@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Peter
A. Morse, Jr. -- pete.morse@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP &
Richard P. Winegardner -- richard.winegardner@btlaw.com -- Barnes &
Thornburg LLP.
Ruben Hernandez, Defendant, represented by Brian E. Casey, Barnes &
Thornburg LLP.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Dash Disputes Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------
Howard Dash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-01467 (E.D. N.Y., March 19, 2020), seeks damages,
and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.
Convergent Outsourcing is a collection agency with its principal
office located in King County, Washington. It attempted to collect
a debt incurred by Dash in the amount of $91.35. Dash denied such
debt. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com
JLM DECORATING: Martinez Sues in N.Y. Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Martinez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. JLM DECORATING, INC., and JLM
DECORATING NYC INC., and COSMOPOLITAN INTERIOR NY CORPORATION, and
MOSHE GOLD, individually, and JOSAFATH ARIAS, individually, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02969 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2020), is brought for
damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants' violations
of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Defendants routinely required the Plaintiff to work beyond
forty hours per week, paid the Plaintiff on an hourly basis for
only forty hours of work per week, and thus failed to compensate
the Plaintiff at any rate of pay, let alone at the statutorily-
required overtime rate of time and one-half his regular rate of pay
for any hours that the Plaintiff worked per week in excess of
forty, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a painter, primarily in
Manhattan and always in New York, from April 22, 2018, through
November 21, 2018.
The Defendants are three corporations that operate as a single
enterprise that runs a New York City-based painting and renovation
business for commercial clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth F. St. John, 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
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Kelley Asbestos Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH F. KELLEY,
Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of ELINA
M. MENENDEZ v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No. 2020-006331-CA-01 (Filed March
17, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, 11th
Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on March 23, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-21231-CMA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were involved in the
mining, milling, manufacturing, selling, supplying and/or
distributing of asbestos-containing products. The Plaintiff, the
surviving spouse of Elina M. Menendez (the Decedent), contends that
the Decedent was exposed to asbestos from the Defendants' products,
and developed terminal mesothelioma and passed away on April 20,
2018, as a result of such exposure to asbestos.
Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer
packaged goods.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrea Cox, Esq.
SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
701 Brickell Ave., 17th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 428-4500
Facsimile: (305) 373-4744
JP MORGAN: 11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Anderman FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSEMARY ARBUCKLE ANDERMAN, CAROLYN ARBUCKLE PLATT,
MARILYN ARBUCKLE SCHEIDT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, PHELAN HALLINAN DIAMOND & JONES, PLLC,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-13734 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint.
The Plaintiffs -- Anderman, Platt, and Scheidt -- appeal the
dismissal of their complaint, filed on behalf of themselves and a
putative class. The Plaintiffs alleged that Chase and its law
firm, Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PLLC, violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by naming them in a state-court
foreclosure action relating to their deceased brother's home.
The Plaintiffs are the sisters and heirs of Clinton Arbuckle, who
passed away in 2012 while in default on his mortgage. The
promissory note and the mortgage both identify Chase as the lender
and Clinton Arbuckle as the borrower. Chase foreclosed on the
mortgage and, in an amended state-court complaint (filed by its
lawyers at Phelan), stated that the full amount was payable. All
of the Plaintiffs -- Anderman, Platt, and Scheidt -- were listed as
foreclosure Defendants. Chase's complaint alleged that each of the
Plaintiffs may have or claim an interest in the property that is
subject to the foreclosure action by virtue of being a possible
heir of Clinton Arbuckle and that any such interest is subordinate
in time and inferior in right" to Chase's.
As relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims, the foreclosure complaint
requested that the state court enter a judgment foreclosing the
mortgage and retaining jurisdiction to make any and all further
orders and judgments as may be necessary and proper, including the
entry of a deficiency judgment if the proceeds of the sale are
insufficient. The Defendants also served Scheidt and Anderman a
summons, which stated: "If you do not file your response on time,
you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and property may
thereafter be taken without further warning from the court."
The Plaintiffs filed a federal class-action complaint against Chase
and Phelan, alleging that the summons and state-court complaint
violated the FDCPA. The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
complaint, deciding that Chase was not a "debt collector" within
the meaning of the FDCPA and that the conduct alleged in the
complaint was not actionable under the FDCPA. The appeal follows.
The Eleventh Circuit finds that as to Defendant Phelan, the
complaint recites verbatim the same conclusory allegations that it
does against Chase in arguing that Phelan is a "debt collector" and
subject to the FDCPA. Although the district court did not
specifically decide whether Phelan could be considered a "debt
collector," the Eleventh Circuit concludes that the plaintiffs'
complaint fails to allege that Phelan is a "debt collector." The
Plaintiffs were required, but failed, to properly plead sufficient
factual content showing that either Phelan's "principal purpose" is
debt collection or that Phelan "regularly collects" debt that is
"owed or due another."
The Plaintiffs also point to a summons they received that stated
that they must respond to Chase's foreclosure complaint or risk
adverse action. The language that the Plaintiffs take issue with
is form language provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Like the foreclosure complaint, the summons does not constitute an
implicit or explicit demand for the Plaintiffs to pay any debt. It
refers generally to consequences that may result from failing to
respond to a complaint; and the foreclosure complaint at issue
simply joined them in the foreclosure action because they may have
an interest in Clinton Arbuckle's property -- not because they owed
any payment.
In conclusion, the Plaintiffs have failed to properly plead that
Chase and Phelan are debt collectors under the FDCPA and that the
conduct alleged was related to debt collection. The district court
therefore did not err in dismissing their complaint. The Eleventh
Circuit accordingly affirmed the dismissal order.
A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's Feb. 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/iffBCa from Leagle.com.
Robert M. Brochin -- bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
John A. Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jonathan Betten Cohen -- jcohen@mayerbrown.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Wendy Stein Fulton -- wsteinfulton@bonnerkiernan.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
James E. Orth, Jr. -- jamesorthlaw@gmail.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
George M. Gingo -- gingo.george@gmail.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Martha Anne Leibell -- martha.leibell@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
Melissa Marie Coates -- melissa.coates@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.
KELLY SERVICES: Larry Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Aliah Larry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01541-AT (N.D.
Ga., April 10, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other workers
like her regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours
each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant improperly
classified the Plaintiff as exempt employees and paid them a salary
with no overtime compensation.
Plaintiff Larry worked for Kelly Services, Inc. as a Recruiter.
Kelly is an employment and staffing company operating throughout
the United States and internationally, including in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Radford, Esq.
RADFORD & KEEBAUGH LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (678) 271-0302
Email: james@decaturlegal.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
KLLM TRANSPORT: Appeals Ruling in Swales FLSA Suit to 5th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant KLLM Transport Services, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuits styled Harry Swales, et al. v.
KLLM Transport Services, LLC, Case Nos. 3:17-CV-490 and
3:17-CV-517, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi, Jackson.
The appellate case is captioned as Harry Swales, et al. v. KLLM
Transport Services, LLC, Case No. 19-60847, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in the cases
titled HARRY SWALES, ET AL. v. KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, and
MARCUS BRENT JOWERS v. KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:17-CV-490-DPJ-FKB, Consolidated With Case No. 3:17-CV-517-DPJ-FKB
(S.D. Miss.), Judge Daniel P. Jordan III granted the Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Conditional Certification.
Defendant KLLM is a motor carrier that is authorized by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration to provide transportation of
property for hire to the public. Plaintiffs Corey Lilly, Kyle
Shettles, John McGee, and Marcus Brent Jowers all worked as truck
drivers for KLLM under Independent Contractor Agreements ("ICAs")
between October 2015 and January 2017. The Plaintiffs say KLLM
misclassified them and similarly situated truck drivers as
independent contractors when, under Mississippi law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), they were employees entitled to
payment of the federal minimum wage.
Plaintiffs Lilly, Shettles, and McGee filed the lead case against
KLLM on June 21, 2017; Jowers filed the member case on June 28,
2017. The Plaintiffs seek relief for themselves and on behalf of
similarly situated KLLM drivers under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The cases were consolidated for purposes of discovery on March 29,
2018, and the parties engaged in discovery limited to the issue of
Section 216(b) certification.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees HARRY SWALES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; COREY LILLY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; KYLE SHETTLES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; MARCUS BRENT JOWERS,
and others similarly situated; and JOHN MCGEE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
John Dudley Butler, Esq.
BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.
499 Breakwater Drive
Benton, MS 39039-0000
Telephone: 662-673-0091
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON, L.L.P.
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-640-1160
E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com
Plaintiff-Appellee MARCUS BRENT JOWERS, and others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Joe Bradley Pigott, Esq.
PIGOTT, REEVES, JOHNSON, P.A.
775 N. Congress Street
Jackson, MS 39202-0000
Telephone: 601-949-9450
Defendant-Appellant KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, L.L.C., is represented
by:
Christopher G. Dunnells, Esq.
Grover Clark Monroe, II, Esq.
DUNBARMONROE, P.A.
270 Trace Colony Park
Ridgeland, MS 39157-0000
Telephone: 601-898-2073
E-mail: cdunnells@dunbarmonroe.com
gcmonroe@dunbarmonroe.com
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss AMCA-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
suit related to Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) security incident
On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection
agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA
experienced that may have involved certain personal information
about some of the Company's patients (the AMCA Incident).
The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct
collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company's systems were
not impacted by the AMCA Incident.
Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped
sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from
continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the
Company.
AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an unauthorized
user had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March
30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the possibility that
personal information on AMCA's system was at risk during that time
period.
Information on AMCA's affected system from the Company may have
included name, address, and balance information for the patient and
person responsible for payment, along with the patient's phone
number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service.
The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance
information may have been included for some individuals, and
because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number
as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number
for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests,
laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company
were in the AMCA affected system.
The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing
address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was
affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit
monitoring and identity protection services that will be provided
free of charge for 24 months.
Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District
Courts. Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other
health care providers who used AMCA. These lawsuits have been
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the District of New
Jersey.
On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. On
January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all claims.
The consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the Company did
not adequately protect its patients' data and failed to timely
notify those patients of the AMCA Incident. The Complaint asserts
various causes of action, including, but not limited to,
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and the
violation of state data protection statutes. The Complaint seeks
damages on behalf of a class of all affected Company customers.
The Company will vigorously defend the multi-district litigation.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Conditional Class Cert. Bid in "Mitchell" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the court in Mitchell v. Covance, Inc. et al., denied without
prejudice the plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a class
action.
On July 30, 2019, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit, Mitchell v. Covance, Inc. et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff alleges that certain individuals employed by Covance Inc.
and Chiltern International Inc. were misclassified as exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and were thereby not properly paid overtime
compensation.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, and
recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
On February 3, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a class action.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend California Wage & Hour Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the company continues to defend three putative class-action
lawsuits related to California wage and hour laws.
Three putative class-action lawsuits related to California wage and
hour laws have been served on the Company.
On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et
al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
On June 10, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed
in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
On July 1, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Jan v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
All three cases were subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, and then consolidated
for all pre-trial proceedings.
In the lawsuits, Plaintiffs allege that employees were not properly
paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break
premiums, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not
properly paid wages upon termination of employment.
The Plaintiffs assert these actions violate various California
Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice
under California law.
The lawsuits seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery
of attorney's fees and costs.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Davis and Vargas Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the company faces a putative class action suit entitled, Luke
Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings.
On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to
use the Company’s touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service
centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
similar California statutes.
The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees and costs.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Kawa Orthodontics Suit Settled
-----------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the parties in Kawa Orthodontics LLP, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., settled the lawsuit.
On April 22, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Kawa Orthodontics LLP, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 6, 2019, the
defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and at least
40 other recipients without the recipients' prior express
invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual
damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 28, 2019. In
response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which contains additional allegations, including
allegations related to another facsimile.
On December 16, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a notice withdrawing its
Motion for Class Certification and all class allegations in the
Amended Complaint.
In January 2020, the parties settled the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Store Staff Sues Over Unpaid Working Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Cheree Bogaert and Zachary Evans, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's
Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00695, (D. Colo., March 13, 2020), seeks an award of unpaid
wages and liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
attendant penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and various state labor statutes.
Lowe's is a retail company specializing in home improvement with a
chain of retail stores in the United States and Canada. Bogaert
worked as an hourly Loss Prevention Manager at Fort Collins Lowe's
while Evans worked as a Department Manager at Louisville Lowe's.
They claim that Lowe's failed to cover all their hours worked due
to their time-keeping system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Store Staff Sues Over Unpaid Working Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Forte and Dustin Huffman, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.
and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01108, (D.
S.C., March 19, 2020), seeks an award of unpaid wages and
liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and various state labor statutes.
Lowe's is a retail company specializing in home improvement with a
chain of retail stores in the United States and Canada. Forte
worked from February 2015 until February 2019 occupying the
position of Department Supervisor at Charleston Lowe's as her last
known post. Huffman worked from August 2018 until April 2019 for
Lowe's occupying Department Manager at Lexington Lowe's as her last
position. They claim that Lowe's failed to cover all their hours
worked due to their time-keeping system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
- and -
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
Tel: (843) 579-7373
Fax: (843) 614-6417
bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
LOWE'S HOME: Shortchanges Workers' Pay, Store Staff's Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Cleavenger and Ronnie Roberts, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.
and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05049,
(E.D. Wash., March 13, 2020), seeks an award of unpaid wages and
liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Washington
Minimum Wage Act and the Washington Wage Rebate Act.
Lowe's is a retail company specializing in home improvement with a
chain of retail stores in the United States and Canada. Cleavenger
worked as an hourly Loss Prevention Manager at Kennewick Lowe's
while Roberts worked as a Department Manager at Lakewood Lowe's.
They claim that Lowe's failed to cover all their hours worked due
to their time-keeping system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Berger, Esq.
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 622-8000
Fax: (206) 682-2305
Email: berger@sgb-law.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
LUXURY TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Langston Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrice Langston, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LUXURY TRANSPORTATION GROUP, Case No.
6:20-cv-00628 (M.D. Fla. April 10, 2020), is brought for damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime
wages and minimum wage for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff and others worked hours in excess of 40 hours within
a work week for the Defendant, and they were entitled to be
compensated for these overtime hours at a rate equal to one and
one-half times their individual regular hourly rates, says the
complaint. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and Members of
the Class an overtime premium for all of the overtime hours that
they worked, in violation of the FLSA.
Plaintiff Langston was employed by the Defendant as a Driver of its
luxury motor coaches.
The Defendant operates a luxury transportation business in Orlando
and throughout Florida, including Orange County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main Number: 813-224-0431
Direct Dial: 813-386-0995
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
gnichols@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Removed as Defendant in LeJeune Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
been removed as a defendant in the class action suit initiated by
EJ LeJeune.
On March 20, 2019, EJ LeJeune, a former employee of ESPADA
Logistics and Security Group, LLC and ESPADA Caribbean LLC
(together, "ESPADA") filed a collective and class action complaint
in LeJeune v. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy &
ESPADA Logistics and Security Group, LLC, No. 5:19-cv-00286-DAE, in
the Western District of Texas.
On August 5, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend his complaint, dismissing Mammoth Energy Services,
Inc. as a defendant, adding Cobra Acquisitions LLC ("Cobra") as a
defendant, and adding ESPADA Caribbean LLC and two officers of
ESPADA-James Jorrie and Jennifer Gay Jorrie-as defendants.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants jointly employed
the plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and failed to pay
them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Puerto Rico law.
The complaint also alleges the following violations of Puerto Rico
law: illegal deductions from workers’ wages, failure to timely
pay all wages owed, failure to pay a required severance when
terminating workers without just cause, failure to pay for all
hours worked, failure to provide required meal periods and failure
to pay a statutorily required bonus to eligible workers.
The parties have agreed to stay the case until May 31, 2020 in
order to conduct a mediation.
Mr. LeJeune seeks to represent a class of workers allegedly
employed by one or both defendants and paid a flat amount for each
day worked regardless of how many hours were worked.
The complaint seeks back wages, including overtime wages owed,
liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages owed, attorneys'
fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Cobra denies that it employed Mr. LeJeune and the putative class
members and intends to enforce the indemnification obligations owed
to it by ESPADA.
Mammoth said, "At this time, the Company is not able to predict the
outcome of these proceedings or whether they will have a material
impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MDL 2804: Faces Ables Suit in Ohio Over Sale of Opioid Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MATTHEW ABLES (DECEASED), by and through his mother and next
of kin, JUDY N. ABLES, et al. v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:20-op-45113-DAP (N.D. Ohio, March
25, 2020), seeks remedy from the harm to the Plaintiffs arising
from the Defendants' wrongful conduct and the unjust profits and
other benefits reaped by the drug companies and distributors in the
sale of opioid drugs.
The Defendants manufacture, market, sell and distribute
prescription opioids, which are highly addictive narcotic
painkillers, the Plaintiffs say. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme
to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic
pain. In doing so, the Defendants falsely minimized the risks of
opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid
prescriptions than there should have been, the Plaintiffs add.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants broke simple rules and
helped unleash a healthcare crisis that has had far-reaching
financial, social, and deadly consequences in the United States,
including Mississippi.
The case is being consolidated in MDL 2804, IN RE: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION.
The Plaintiffs are residents of the United States of America, who
were prescribed opioids and who, over the following years, received
prescriptions for various opioids. Some Plaintiffs were
subsequently treated for addiction related to their opioid
prescriptions or sought self-care treatment.
The Defendants are opioid manufacturers.
The Defendants include CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION;
PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK
COMPANY, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS
INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC;
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON
PHARMA, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC; and MALLINCKRODT LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Arthur Eaves, Jr., Esq.
EAVES LAW FIRM, LLC
101 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 355-7961
Facsimile: (601) 355-0530
E-mail: johnjr@eaveslawmail.com
MDL 2804: Rock Ministries Suit Over Opioid Drugs Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
FOUNDATION ON THE ROCK MINISTRIES; NEW LIFE CHURCH OF GOD d/b/a
PROJECT NEW START, INC.; and RANKIN BAPTIST ASSOCIATION d/b/a
CROSSROADS COUNSELING CENTER v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION,
et al., Case No. 1:20-op-45110-DAP (N.D. Ohio., March 24, 2020),
arises from challenges the Plaintiffs experience resulting from the
impact of the nationwide opioid epidemic on inhouse residents and
outside participants inside drug and alcohol rehabilitation
treatment and emotional/mental therapy treatment facilities.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to
fairly and completely compensate the Plaintiffs and the Class for
all damages, multiple or treble, as provided by law; punitive
damages as provided by law; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
as provided by law, and that such interest be awarded at the
highest legal rate.
The Plaintiffs have responded to the unique but changing demands of
addiction treatment in the communities they serve. But the opioid
epidemic has challenged their leadership skills, taxed their
resources, and threatened their ability to provide quality
treatment to all in need, the Plaintiffs assert.
The case is being consolidated in MDL 2804, IN RE: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION.
The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute
prescription opioids, which are highly addictive narcotic
painkillers. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have engaged
in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors
and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the
Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their
benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there
should have been.
The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Defendants'
deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years,
they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture
and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient
populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge
of opioid abuse, the Defendants earned billions in profits as a
direct result of the harms they inflicted.
The Plaintiffs are operators of non-for-profit general and specific
inhouse resident and outside participant drug and alcohol
rehabilitation treatment and emotional/mental therapy treatment
facilities.
The Defendants include CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION;
PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK
COMPANY, INC.; RICHARD SACKLER; BEVERLY SACKLER; DAVID SACKLER;
ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; JONATHAN SACKLER; KATHE SACKLER; JOHN
STEWART; MARK TIMNEY; CRAIG LANDAU; RUSSELL GASDIA; MORTIMER D.A.
SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SPECGX LLC; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS
INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; INSYS
THERAPEUTICS, INC., ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC.;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; RITE-AID OF MARYLAND, INC.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES; ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; ANDA, INC.; H.D.
SMITH, LLC f/k/a H.D. SMITH WHOLESALE DRUG CO.; HENRY SCHEIN, INC.;
DEPOMED, INC.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WAL-MART, INC.; and
DOES 1-100.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Arthur Eaves, Jr., Esq.
EAVES LAW FIRM, LLC
101 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 355-7961
Facsimile: (601) 355-0530
E-mail: johnjr@eaveslawmail.com
MH SUB I LLC: Rattler FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kim Rattler, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated v. MH Sub I, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; Demandforce, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
RG20057640, was removed from the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 9, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-02444 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
MH Sub I, LLC, doing business as Internet Brands, operates as an
Internet media company.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew I. Bobb, Esq.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
550 S. Hope St., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 532-2116
Email: mbobb@hunton.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Reetz Sues in W.D. Wisconsin Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Melissa R. Reetz,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00277-slc (W.D.
Wis., March 25, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Midland Credit is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 E. Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
MOBILEONE LLC: Fails to Pay SMs' Overtime Wages, Hasbrook Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Hasbrook and Christopher Godwin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MOBILEONE, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-02458 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant seeking all relief available under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, on
behalf of all current and former overtime exempt-classified Store
Managers, who worked at any of the Defendant's locations in the
United States.
The Plaintiffs alleges that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, without receiving overtime compensation as required by
the FLSA or NMMWA. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs proper
overtime wages for hours they worked for its benefit in excess of
40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as SMs.
MobileOne LLC is a T-Mobile retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
- and -
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
Email: jms@outtengolden.com
- and -
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
Lucy Brierly Bansal, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Ste. 200W
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Facsimile: 202-847-4410
Email: sabrahamson@outtengolden
lbansal@outtengolden.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Alan Quiles, Esq.
Camar Jones, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
cjones@shavitzlaw.com
OFFICIAL PAYMENTS: Durrant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
AL DURRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OFFICIAL PAYMENTS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Case NO. CACE-20-005224 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., March 23, 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 Defendant fails to honor requests
for opting out of text messages. Even where consumers make repeated
requests to not receive text messages, the Defendant continues to
bombard them with messages.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and Class Members, any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant.
The Defendant provides electronic payment solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
40 I E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 400 4713
E-mail: rnbiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF
JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 628-5793
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
PARADIES SHOPS: Luca Suit Over FACTA Breach Removed to E.D. Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas Luca, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Paradies Shops, LLC d/b/a Lagardere Travel Retail, Case No.
20-002698-CZ (Filed Feb. 20, 2020), was removed from the Michigan
Circuit Court for Wayne County to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on March 23, 2020.
The Eastern District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-10763-JEL-RSW to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs bring a one count complaint for an alleged violation
by the Defendant of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
Paradies operates stores in airports, hotels, and other locations
throughout the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com
- and -
Garry F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243 2929
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-Mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy J. Kramer, Esq.
ABBOTT NICHOLSON, P.C.
300 River Place, Suite 3000
Detroit, MI 48207-4225
Telephone: (313) 566-2500
Facsimile: (313) 566-2502
E-Mail: tjkramer@abbottnicholson.com
- and -
Andrew Soven, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Arch Street, Suite 800
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (215) 252-9554
Facsimile: (215) 867-6070
E-mail: andrew.soven@hklaw.com
- and -
Matthew T. Covell, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
1180 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 1800
Atlanta, GA 30309-3407
Telephone: (404) 817-8500
Facsimile: (404) 881-0470
E-mail: matthew.covell@hklaw.com
PBF HOLDING: Parties in Kendig Suit Reach Initial Settlement Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that parties in the class
action suit entitled, Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., have reached a tentative
agreement in principle to settle the case.
On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining along with ExxonMobil and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were
named as defendants in a class action and representative action
complaint filed on behalf of Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others
similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.
To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.
On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court,
California Central District. A mediation hearing between the
parties was held on August 23, 2019.
From the mediation hearing, the parties have reached a tentative
agreement in principle to settle.
PBF Holding said, "Although the settlement resolution has not been
finalized, we presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PENN COMMUNITY BANK: Dajti Claims Discrimination at Work
--------------------------------------------------------
Klevina K. Dajti, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Penn Community Bank,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01483, (E.D. Pa., March 19, 2020), seeks
all compensation, damages, costs, fees, expenses, liquidated
damages, punitive damages and equitable relief under the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act Americans with Disabilities Act
and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and relief over sexual
discrimination, discrimination on the basis of maternity or
pregnancy to be a form of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Family and Medical Leave Act, as well as
redress for retaliation under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Penn Community Bank is a local community bank serving Lower, Middle
and Upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania, as well as surrounding
geographical areas with banking, insurance and investment services
where Dajti worked at their Bensalem Branch as Sales and Service
Manager.
Dajti claims that she was unlawfully fired while
caring/breastfeeding her 4-year old son who was diagnosed with
leukemia, and the need for expressing breast milk for her new born
child. She claims that Penn Community did not accommodate her
request for reasonable break time to extract breast milk. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Weinstein, Esq.
WEINSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC
500 Office Center Drive, Suite 400
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Tel: (267) 513-1942
Email: marc@meweinsteinlaw.com
- and -
Vincent J. Pentima, Esq.
PENTIMA LAW FIRM, PLLC
30 Rock Hill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA
Tel: (484) 436-2119
Email: vjp@pentimalaw.com
PEP BOYS MANNY: Zinnah Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SIKDER AL ZINNAH,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEP
BOYS MANNY, MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., Case No. 701394/2020
(Filed Jan. 27, 2020), was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Queens, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on March 25, 2020.
The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01544-ARR-CLP to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the Defendant failed to
pay him certain wages and other compensation in violation of the
New York Labor Law, and terminated his employment in retaliation
for his alleged complaints concerning the Defendant's wage and hour
practices.
Pep Boys retails automotive products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
E-mail: Abdul@abdulhassan.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa M. Griffith, Esq.
Matthew R. Capobianco, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631 247 4700
PINE CLUB: Church Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Unlawful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Church, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. THE PINE CLUB, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00135-WHR (S.D. Ohio, April 9, 2020), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and Ohio Prompt Pay Act for unpaid wages and unlawful
termination.
According to the complaint, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff on an
hourly basis when working in a non-exempt position as a server at
cash wage rates less than the Federal and Ohio minimum wage. The
Defendant failed to notify the Plaintiff of the required tip credit
provisions prior to taking a tip credit.
On October 2, 2019, one of the bussers at the Defendant, Tyler
(LNU), asked the Plaintiff if she "could keep a secret?" The
Plaintiff responded to Tyler's request by asking, "What do you
want?" Tyler then said to the Plaintiff, "Do you want to see a
picture of my big dick?" the Plaintiff quickly responded to Tyler's
statement by saying, "no," and became very upset. A few days later,
the Plaintiff called the Defendant's General Manager, Karen Watson,
to inform her about Tyler's comments from a few days prior. The
Plaintiff was originally hesitant to raise this issue to Ms. Watson
given that Tyler was her nephew, but the Plaintiff had no choice
because the situation kept bothering her some much.
During the call, Ms. Watson asked no details about the Plaintiff's
complaint regarding Tyler. Instead, Ms. Watson demanded that the
Plaintiff take a drug test. A few hours after the call, Ms. Watson
called the Plaintiff to inform her that the Defendant was
suspending the Plaintiff's employment, providing no explanation for
the Defendant's decision. Approximately five days, while the
Plaintiff was still out on suspension, the Defendant informed the
Plaintiff that her employment was terminated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a server in July
2011.
The Pine Club, LLC, is an Ohio limited liability company doing
business in the Southern District of Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
Angela J. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW, LLC
9200 Montgomery Rd., Suite 11A
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 834-8254
Email: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
angela@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
POPULAR INC: Faces Golden Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Popular, Inc. The
case is captioned as Arnold M. Golden III, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Popular, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02573-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. The
suit demands $5 million in damages.
Popular, doing business as Banco Popular in Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands and as Popular Bank in the mainland United States,
is a financial services conglomerate that has operated in Puerto
Rico for over 125 years and in the mainland United States for over
52 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
REESE RICHMAN, LLP
875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 579-4625
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
RAILWORKS CORP: Faces Coleman Suit Over Massive Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
CORNELIUS COLEMAN AND LINDA HORAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. RAILWORKS CORPORATION, KEVIN RIDDETT
AND BOB CUMMINGS, Case No. 1:20-cv-02428-GBD (S.D.N.Y., March 19,
2020), seeks to redress RailWorks' unlawful disclosure of the
personally identifiable information of all persons, regardless of
whether they were current and former employees of the Defendants,
in a massive data breach around the beginning of 2020.
The Breach occurred as a result of a cyberattack, which resulted in
the disclosure of the Plaintiffs' PII, including name, address,
driver's license number and/or government issued ID, Social
Security number, date of birth and date of hire/termination and/or
retirement.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants betrayed their trust by
failing to properly safeguard and protect their PII and by
disclosing their PII to cybercriminals. The Plaintiffs and other
Class Members are all persons, whether current or former employees
or otherwise, whose personally PII was compromised as a result of
the Data Breach.
Founded in 1998, RailWorks provides track, transit and rail system
services in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq.
THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
693 East Avenue
Rochester, NY, 14607
Telephone: (585) 272 0540
E-mail: mthomas@employmentattorneys.com
jlukasiewicz@employmentattorneys.com
REGAL CINEMAS: Thornton Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT THORNTON v. REGAL
CINEMAS, INC., a Tennessee corporation; UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE
CIRCUIT, INC., a Maryland corporation; EDWARD THEATRES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; CINEWORLD GROUP PLC, a business entity of
unknown form; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
34-2020-00274695-CU-OE-GDS (Filed Jan. 31, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on March 23, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00628-JAM-CKD to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay meal period and rest period premiums.
Regal Cinemas, formerly known as Regal Entertainment Group, is an
American movie theater chain headquartered in Knoxville,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Rabia Z. Reed, Esq.
SARAH ZENEWICZ, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
E-mail: michael.nader@ogletreedeakins.com
rabia.reed@ogletree.com
sarah.zenewicz@ogletree.com
RELIABLE COLLECTIONS: Reyes Sues in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reliable Collections.
The case is captioned as MARISOL REYES, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. RELIABLE COLLECTIONS, also known
as: RELIABLE COLLECTION AGENCY, INC. and PUYA NILI, Case No.
2:20-cv-03092-ES-MAH (D.N.J., March 20, 2020),
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A. Hammer.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Reliable is a collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone: (201) 507-6300
E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com
RESORT MARKETING: Dunlap Appeals Decision in Charvat Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Mark Dunlap filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled PHILIP CHARVAT, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. ELIZABETH VALENTE, RESORT MARKETING GROUP,
INC., CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,
and NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., Case No. 1:12-cv-05746, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order granting Parties Motion for Final Approval of
the Class Settlement in the case.
Philip Charvat received a series of prerecorded telemarketing calls
from Defendant Resort Marketing Group, Inc. and its principal
Elizabeth Valente (RMG), promoting travel products and services
offered by Defendants Carnival Corporation & PLC, Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Ltd., and NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. Charvat had not consented to
receive the calls, and so he filed this lawsuit as a putative class
action against Defendants for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The appellate case is captioned as Mark Dunlap v. Philip Charvat,
et al., Case No. 19-3280, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Objector-Appellant MARK DUNLAP is represented by:
W. Allen McDonald, Esq.
LACY, PRICE & WAGNER P.C.
249 N. Peters Road
Knoxville, TN 37923
Telephone: 865-246-0800
E-mail: amcdonald@lpwpc.com
Plaintiff-Appellee PHILIP J. CHARVAT, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
155 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-729-5288
E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com
Defendant-Appellee CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Becker, Esq.
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 N. Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611-0000
Telephone: 312-321-8425
E-mail: jbecker@smbtrials.com
Defendants-Appellees ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., and NCL
(BAHAMAS), LTD., are represented by:
Catherine MacIvor, Esq.
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, P.A.
Two S. Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305-358-6555
E-mail: cmacivor@fflegal.com
ROHR INC: Morgan Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an
individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ROHR,
INC., a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, a corporation, d/b/a UTC
AEROSPACE SYSTEMS d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. FCS052589 (Filed March 27, 2019), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Solano to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March
25, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to provide required meal periods and required
rest periods, and failing to pay overtime wages and minimum wages.
Rohr is a wholly owned unit of United Technologies Corporation, an
aerospace manufacturing company based in Chula Vista, California.
Hamilton Sundstrand was an American globally active corporation
that manufactured and supported aerospace and industrial products
for worldwide markets.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
Christopher Im, Esq.
Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com
cim@seyfarth.com
jbrophy@seyfarth.com
ROSEWOOD RESOURCES: Edwards Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rosewood Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00314 (W.D. Tex., March 13, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Rosewood performs oil and natural gas exploration and production
throughout the United States, including in Texas. Edwards worked
for Rosewood as a Completions Consultant from approximately April
2019 through February 2020. Rosewood paid Edwards on a day-rate
basis without paid overtime for the hours they worked in excess of
40 hours each week, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SAMUEL SON & CO: Terrell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TRAYVION TERRELL,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. SAMUEL, SON & CO. (USA) INC., a Delaware
corporation; SIERRA ALUMINUM COMPANY, a California corporation;
MAIN STEEL, an unknown California business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. RIC2000570 (Feb. 3, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on March 23, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00587-JVS-KK to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims for the Defendants' violation of the
California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime, failing to pay
meal period premiums and rest period premiums, and failing to pay
minimum wages.
Samuel, Son & Company operates as a processor and distributor of
metals.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
Sage S. Stone, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
E-mail: christopher.decker@ogletree.com
sage.stone@ogletree.com
SBS TRANSPORT: Stokes Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MANASSEH STOKES,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SBS
TRANSPORT, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG19042131 (Filed Nov. 5, 2019),
was removed from the the Superior Court of the State of California
in and for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on March 25, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-02084 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he and other truck drivers
were the Defendants' employees, but misclassified as independent
contractors. On that basis, he asserts that the Defendants violated
various wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code.
Specifically, he asserts claims for failure to pay minimum wage;
failure to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses; and
unlawful deductions from wages.
SBS is a family owned and operated company providing nationwide,
door to door auto transport services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John C. Kirke, Esq.
Andrew S. Mackay, Esq.
Yen P. Chau, Esq.
DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP
1999 Harrison Street, 26th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3520
Telephone: (510) 451-3300
Facsimile: (510) 451-1527
E-mail: jkirke@donahue.com
amackay@donahue.com
ychau@donahue.com
SCOTT CREDIT: Faces Toth Suit Over Wrongful Overdraft & NSF Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNA TOTH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCOTT CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-100, Case No.
3:20-cv-00306 (S.D. Ill., March 24, 2020), arises from SCU's policy
and practice of assessing an overdraft or Non-Sufficient Funds Fee
on transactions when there was enough money in the checking account
to cover the transactions presented for payment and for charging
repeat NSF fees on the same electronic item.
The Plaintiff contends that SCU wrongfully charged her and the
Class Members overdraft fees and NSF fees. She adds that the
charging of such overdraft and NSF fees breaches SCU's contracts
with its members, which include her and the members of the Class.
According to the complaint, the charging for such overdraft fees
also violates federal law. SCU failed to describe its actual
overdraft service in its Opt-In Agreement by failing to describe
accurately the actual method by which SCU calculates its overdraft
fees.
The Plaintiff was a member of SCU.
SCU is and has been a federally-chartered credit union with
branches in Illinois and Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com
ejk@mccunewright.com
lmp@mccunewright.com
rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
- and -
Taras Kick, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
SD&A TELESERVICES: Skulevold TCPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANFINN SKULEVOLD, NANCY RUIZ,
and MIKE GERZEVITZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SD&A TELESERVICES, INC., a Georgia
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV05038
(Filed Feb. 7, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 25,
2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02771 to the proceeding.
The class action complaint alleges two claims under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and a third claim under California's
Unfair Competition Law.
SD&A is a telemarketing firm.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Calvin E. Davis, Esq.
Emerson H. Kim, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5002
Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
E-mail: cdavis@grsm.com
ekim@grsm.com
SIERRA FOODS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Castellanos Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO CASTELLANOS v. SIERRA FOODS, INC. dba USA GASOLINE; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV11462 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 23, 2020), seeks civil penalties pursuant to
the Private Attorney General Act resulting from the Defendants'
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages to the Plaintiff
and similarly-aggrieved employees.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay all wages,
including minimum wages and overtime wages, and failed to provide
rest periods and meal periods.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from January 2018
through February 2019. The Plaintiff was employed in a non-exempt
hourly position, and was entitled to compensation for all hours
worked, including overtime compensation, as well as penalties from
the Defendant.
SFI is a California corporation, which owns and or operates grocery
and or gasoline stores within the state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
Joshua D. Klein, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
jklein@mahoney-law.net
SINGLETON FARMS: Fuller Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fuller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SINGLETON FARMS, LLC, and MARK SINGLETON, Case No.
2:20-cv-00082-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 10, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
proper overtime compensation for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff regularly worked 70 hours per week, and sometimes
worked as many as 100 hours per week. The Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiff a proper minimum and overtime wage under the FLSA,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a row crop farmer on the Defendants' farm.
The Defendants own and operate a farm in Watson.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Bid for Writ of Mandamus in Trust Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL., Relators,
Case No. 01-19-00711-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas,
First District, Houston, denied the Relators' petition for a writ
of mandamus challenging the trial court's denial of their motion to
dismiss the putative class action brought by real
party-in-interest, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters'
Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated. The Court dismissed as moot all pending motions.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/vigIc4 from Leagle.com.
Noelle M. Reed -- noelle.reed@skadden.com -- Wallis M. Hampton --
wallis.hampton@skadden.com -- Ellen Bush Sessions --
ellen.sessions@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Charles R. Acker, Mark
Oakes -- mark.oakes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- for Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Southwestern Energy
Company, Relator.
Thomas E. Bilek, for St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters'
Pension Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Real party in interest.
STAPLES INC: Bonahoom Sues in Northern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Staples, Inc. The
case is captioned as Peter Bonahoom, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. Staples, Inc. a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01942 (N.D. Ill., March 23,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary M. Rowland. The suit
demands $75,000 in damages alleging violation of contract-related
laws.
Staples Inc. is an American office retail company. Staples is
primarily involved in the sale of office supplies and related
products, via retail channels and business-to-business-oriented
delivery operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com
SUFFOLK FEDERAL: Watson Sues Over Multiple and Improper NSF Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA WATSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SUFFOLK FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01531
(E.D.N.Y., March 24, 2020), alleges that Suffolk routinely charges
its customers multiple insufficient funds fees for the same item,
driving their account balances deeper into negative territory.
The Plaintiff contends that Suffolk promises its customers that if
their account balance drops too low to cover a particular "item,"
such as a check, withdrawal, or service charge, Suffolk will charge
the customer a single $32 NSF Fee per item. But as Ms. Watson and
consumers all over the country have discovered, Suffolk doesn't
abide by this promise. She asserts that Suffolk's customers have
been injured by the Credit Union's improper practices to the tune
of millions of dollars billed from their accounts in violation
Suffolk's clear contractual commitments.
Ms. Watson, on behalf of herself and two Classes of similarly
situated consumers, seeks to end Suffolk's abusive and predatory
practices and force it to refund all of these improper charges. She
asserts claims for breach of contract; breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; violation of state consumer protection
law; and/or unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief.
Ms. Watson is a resident of Brooklyn, New York, and holds a Suffolk
checking account.
Suffolk is engaged in the business of providing retail Credit Union
services to consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the
putative Classes. Suffolk has its headquarters in Medford, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, 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
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielplllc.com
TEHAMA LAW GROUP: Griego FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Maria Consuelo Griego, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Tehama Law Group,
P.C., a California corporation; Kes Narbutas, individually and in
his official capacity; Eric Wilson, individually and in his
official capacity; Matthew Wright, individually and in his official
capacity; Patelco Credit Union, a California corporation, Case No.
20CV363709, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
Santa Clara County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 9, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02441-NC to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Tehama Law Group, P.C., is a law firm in San Francisco,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
San Jose, CA 95112-4610
Phone: (408) 294-6100
Fax: (408) 294-6190
Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com
raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lawrence Keith Iglesias, Esq.
ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP
1425 River Park Drive, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95815
Phone: (916) 283-8820
Fax: (916) 283-8821
Email: liglesias@ellislawgrp.com
TENNESSEE: Faces A.M.C. Suit in M.D. Tenn. Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TennCare. The case is
captioned as A.M.C. by her next friend, C.D.C.; K.A. by his next of
friend; J.Y.; S.F.A.; by her next friend, C.M.A.; Vivian Barnes by
her next friend Glenda Surrett; Carlissa Caudill; S.L.C by her next
friend, C.B.C.; Rhonda Cleveland; D.D.; T.E.W.; S.D.W. by her next
friend D.D.; Y.A.D.; Z.M.D.; by his next friend, D.D.; X.M.D. by
his next friend, D.D.; Charles E. Fultz by his next friend, Mary
Fultz; Michael S. Hill by his next friend, Kimberly Noe; J.S.K.;
J.C.K.; M.S.K.; by his next friend, J.S.K.; M.N.S. by her next
friend, J.C.K.; D.C.S.; by his next friend, J.C.K.; E.I.L.; by his
next friend, J.N.L.; William C. Monroe; Linda Rebeaud by her next
friend, James Rebeaud; D.R.; J.Z. by his next friend, D.R.; M.X.C.
by her next friend, D.R.; J.C. by his next friend, D.R.; M.A.C. by
her next friend, D.R.; S.L.T.; T.J.T.; A.L.T.; J.L.T.; F.T.; by his
next friend, T.J.T. Kerry A. Vaughn; Johnny L. Walker by his next
friend, Paige Walker, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Stephen Smith, in his official
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Administration and
Director of the Division of TennCare, Case No. 3:20-cv-00240 (M.D.
Tenn., March 19, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
TennCare is the state Medicaid program in the U.S. state of
Tennessee. TennCare was established in 1994 under a federal waiver
that authorized deviations from the standard Medicaid rules.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine M. Kaiman, Esq.
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Esq.
Laura E. Revolinski, Esq.
Michele M. Johnson, Esq.
Vanessa M. Zapata, Esq.
TENNESSEE JUSTICE CENTER
211 7th Avenue, N., Suite 100
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 255-0331
Facsimile: (615) 255-0354
E-mail: CKAIMAN@TNJUSTICE.ORG
gbonnyman@tnjustice.org
laura.revolinski@gmail.com
mjohnson@tnjustice.org
vzapata@tnjustice.org
- and -
Elizabeth Edwards, Esq.
Jane Perkins, Esq.
Sarah Grusin, Esq.
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
200 N. Greensboro St., Suite D-13
Carrboro, NC 27510
Telephone: (919) 968-6308
Facsimile: (919) 968-8855
E-mail: edwards@healthlaw.org
perkins@healthlaw.org
grusin@healthlaw.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Carolyn E. Reed, Esq.
TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
P O Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202-0207
Telephone: (615) 532-9632
Facsimile: (615) 532-1120
Email: carolyn.reed@ag.tn.gov
- and -
Michael W. Kirk, Esq.
Nicole J. Moss, Esq.
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
E-mail: mkirk@cooperkirk.com
nmoss@cooperkirk.com
THIS GROUP LLC: Thompson Sues Over Unwanted Solicitation Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD G. THOMPSON II, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THIS GROUP, LLC d/b/a TOTAL HOME PROTECTION,
Case No. 2:20-cv-10776-DML-MJH (E.D. Mich., March 24, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in
part, by sending unwanted solicitation phone calls to wireless
phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant develops marketing
campaigns using a combination of sales channels, with an emphasis
on outbound telemarketing. The Defendant's outbound telemarketing
efforts include the use of an automated telephone dialing system to
solicit consumers nationwide.
The Defendant's unwanted solicitation phone calls have caused the
Plaintiff actual harm, including aggravation that accompanies
unsolicited telemarketing phone calls, anxiety, and emotional
distress.
The Defendant provides home warranties against home system
component and appliance breakdowns.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8181
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
THREAD SOCIETY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. THREAD SOCIETY LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02512-ER
(S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law by its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant
to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Web site, http://www.threadsociety.com/,will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the Bronx, New York, Bronx County.
As a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, he is a member of
a protected class of individuals under Title III of the ADA.
The Defendant is an online retailer of clothing for men and women.
On the Web site, one can purchase items such as tees, sweatshirts,
tank tops, bodysuits, dresses, accessories and similar items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: 212 392 4772
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
doug@lipskylowe.com
TRADITIONAL EQUITATION: Fielding Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Fielding, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees v.
TRADITIONAL EQUITATION SCHOOL and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV13934 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code.
According to the complaint, TES also violated Labor Code because it
failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees overtime pay, even though they worked more than 8 hours
per day and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment. This
is so because TES misclassified the Plaintiff and others as
independent contractors when they should have been classified as
hourly, non-exempt employees who would be entitled to overtime
compensation.
The Plaintiff started working for TES as a Riding Instructor in
March 2018. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees worked more than 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per
week, however, they were not compensated for their overtime hours,
says the complaint.
TRADITIONAL EQUITATION SCHOOL was and is a California business
operating in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
UNITED AIRLINES: Court Strikes Class Claims in DeFreitas ADA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE DeFREITAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19 C 3397 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D.
Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to
Strike Plaintiff's Class Claims.
The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 23(b)(3) against United, alleging discrimination
against him in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act
("ADA"). According to the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff
alleges that he is a person with a disability, specifically
degenerative cervical disc disease and intractable axial neck pain.
For "many years", he worked for United as an aircraft technician.
He alleges that while he can no longer perform the aircraft
technician job, he could perform a sedentary position. He states
that he applied for many sedentary positions with United, but he
was unsuccessful. However, he was able to secure alternative
employment with Federal Express as an aircraft maintenance advisor,
a position he alleges is at least as demanding as some of the
positions he applied for and did not receive at United.
In his First Amended Complaint, DeFreitas defines the class he
wishes to represent as follows: Current and former employees of
United Airlines, Inc. who were employed at any time between Jan.
25, 2014 through the date that class certification is granted and
who had/has a physical or mental impairment and who were/are unable
to continue working in his/her regular position and who applied for
and were/are not selected for a vacant available position at United
and who either (1) were identified by United as meeting minimum
requirements for one of the available positions at United; and/or
(2) secured an equivalent position at another company.
United now brings a motion to dismiss the class allegations under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or to strike them under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f). United also cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D). In support, United argues the following: (1)
the class definition is not limited to a particular position,
location, type of disability, or to those who sought a reasonable
accommodation; (2) the Plaintiff does not allege that United has a
formal written policy for placement of disabled employees in vacant
positions that he contends is unlawful. The net result, according
to United, is that such a class is unascertainable.
The Plaintiff responds arguing that, accepting all allegations of
the Amended Complaint as true, a class claim is plausible and
should not be dismissed or stricken. He cites to district case law
where ADA employment claims have been allowed.
Judge Leinenweber can conceive of no way questions to prove a
disability can be answered on a classwide basis and, other than the
proposed class qualification that the class member needs to have
obtained employment with another employer, none is suggested by the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also fails to cite any case law, outside
of Hendricks-Robinson, where an ADA class was certified. Moreover,
the Seventh Circuit has stated that the question of a disability is
an individualized one, and must be determined on a case-by-case
basis. Just because an individual employee may have been
discriminated against, absent a formal policy alleged to cause the
discrimination, a significant "gap" is raised that needs to be
bridged to conclude that the discrimination was a result of a
company policy.
The Plaintiff also argues that United attempts to impose a
"heightened ascertainability" standard that was adopted by the
Third Circuit but rejected by the Seventh Circuit. This so-called
"heightened ascertainability" standard is not relevant in the case,
the District Court holds. The Third Circuit's standard makes it
more difficult to obtain class action status in consumer product
litigation. The Seventh Circuit's stated reason for not adopting
the heightened ascertainability requirement is that if effectively
bars class actions where class treatment is often most needed to
overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the
incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his
or her rights.
In the case, a person who has been discriminated against in
violation of the ADA is not in a similar position. A successful
ADA plaintiff is entitled to back pay and attorneys' fees, which is
usually sufficient incentive to ensure access to the courts. Thus,
it is not an imposition to require an employee who believes he has
been discriminated against in violation of the ADA to maintain his
own case.
For the reasons stated, Judge Leinenweber granted the Defendant's
Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Claims.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/gnf4Ez from
Leagle.com.
Jose De Freitas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Waskowski --
awaskowski@wjylegal.com -- Waskowski Johnson Yohalem LLP & Michael
Louis Fradin -- mike@fradinlaw.com -- Michael L. Fradin, Attorney
at Law.
United Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shanthi V. Gaur --
sgaur@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Amanda Elaine
Inskeep -- ainskeep@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.c.
VALLE HOLDINGS: Faces Brown FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Brown, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VALLE HOLDINGS II, INC., LAURENCE F. VALLE and
CHRISTOPHER J. VALLE, Case No. 106098283 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade
Cty., April 9, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for unpaid overtime pay.
The Plaintiff says he worked more than 40 hours per work week and
the Defendants did not pay him his owed overtime pay. The Plaintiff
is entitled to be paid at the rate of time and one half for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek for his entire employment
with the Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly
employee in the Cook from 2000 until he was fired illegally on May
25, 2019.
The Defendants were engaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for commerce.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq.
MG LEGAL GROUP
3126 Center St.
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 448-9557
Fax: (305) 448-9557
Email: ljm@ljmpalaw.com
VALLEY PIZZA: Hathaway Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hathaway, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. VALLEY PIZZA, INC., and CHARLES ANTHONY OSANI, Case No.
1:20-cv-00089 (E.D. Tenn., April 10, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages owed to the
Plaintiff and other delivery drivers employed by the Defendants at
their Domino's stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers. However, the Plaintiff alleges, instead of reimbursing
delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the
business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method
to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably
low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they
incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to
fall below the federal and state minimum wage during some or all
workweeks.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 2019 to
August 2019 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's stores
located in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
Matthew Haynie, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
VECTOR GROUP: Parsons Class Action Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the purported class action
entitled, Parsons v. AC & S Inc., remains stayed.
In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class
action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have claims arising from their exposure to cigarette
smoke and asbestos fibers.
The operative complaint seeks to recover unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class.
The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy of
three of the defendants.
Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage. The company is based in Miami, Florida.
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Massaro Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VELOCITY INVESTMENTS,
LLC. The case is styled as Marc Massaro, Benjamin Bernstein, Greg
Aikens, individually and on behalf of all others of similarly
situated individuals v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-01845-JFL (E.D. Pa., April 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Velocity Investments, LLC, is a debt collection company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph M. Adams, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M ADAMS
200 Highpoint Dr., Suite 211A
Chalfont, PA 18914
Phone: (215) 996-9977
Fax: (215) 996-9111
Email: josephmadamsesq@verizon.net
VENATOR MATERIALS: Faces Macomb ERS Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEMS AND FIREMEN'S
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. VENATOR MATERIALS PLC, SIMON TURNER,
KURT D. OGDEN, STEPHEN IBBOTSON, RUSS R. STOLLE, CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, Case No.
651771/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., March 19, 2020), is a
securities class action brought on behalf of all persons or
entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Venator ordinary
shares in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
and/or in its secondary public offering seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.
On August 3, 2017, Venator conducted the IPO of its stock, and
then, on December 4, 2017, a SPO. In the Offerings, the Defendants
sold over $1 billion worth of Venator ordinary shares at prices as
high as $22.50 per share.
Venator is a chemical company with headquarters in Texas and the
United Kingdom. In 2017, Venator was spun off from Huntsman.
Venator's primary revenue source is the production of titanium
dioxide. Titanium dioxide is a chemical pigment that provides
whiteness, opacity, and brightness to manufactured items. In
January 2017, prior to the IPO, a massive fire ravaged Venator's
Pori Plant. The fire was sparked in the Pori Plant's electrostatic
precipitator in its central building, and then spread throughout
the Plant's pipe network and manufacturing halls.
After the fire occurred, Huntsman did not disclose the extent of
the fire damage or that the Pori Plant had been damaged beyond
repair. Huntsman could not even assess the damage given that large
portions of the Plant were impossible to access because the water
used to extinguish the blaze froze in the harsh Finnish winter.
In the months following the SPO, Venator stated that the cost
estimates to repair the Pori Plant were hundreds of millions of
dollars greater, and the fire damage far more extensive, than
disclosed in the IPO or SPO Registration Statements. Then, in
September 2018, Venator announced that it was abandoning the Pori
Plant entirely.
By December 17, 2018, Venator's share price fell to $3.65 per
share, 82% below the IPO price and 84% below the SPO price.
The Plaintiffs purchased Venator ordinary shares in and traceable
to the IPO and in the SPO and was damaged thereby.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10017-5563
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: afatale@labaton.com
- and -
Henry Rosen, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: henryr@rgrdlaw.com
VERIZON MEDIA: Web Sites Not Accessible by Deaf, Suris Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
YAROSLAV SURIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VERIZON MEDIA INC. d/b/a HUFFPOST, d/b/a HUFFPOST.COM,
D/B/A TECHCRUNCH.COM, Case No. 1:20-cv-01549-BMC (E.D.N.Y., March
25, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to own and operate Web
sites that are fully accessible and usable by deaf and
hard-of-hearing people without the help of others, in violation of
the Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has denied him, who is
deaf and deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, access to goods and
services provided to non-disabled individuals through its Web
sites, http://www.huffpost.com/and http://www.techcrunch.com/,and
in conjunction with its physical location of offices, video
studios, blog studios, magazine publishing, telecommunication
offices, advertising offices and hosting locations, is a violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the
Defendant to correct the barriers which prevent access for death
and hard of hearing individuals so that they can enjoy the
Defendant's Web sites as non-deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals
are able to do.
Verizon Media is a division of Verizon Communications for its media
and online businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 415-0100
Facsimile: (516) 706-6631
VIRGINIA MASON: Faces Androckitis Wage & Hour Suit in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
RHEANNON ANDROCKITIS, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. VIRGINIA MASON MEDICAL CENTER, a Washington
corporation, Case No. 20-2-07137-4 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty.,
March 24, 2020) is a wage and hour class action for money damages
and statutory penalties against the Defendant for violation of the
Washington Industrial Welfare Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and Wage
Rebate Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to provide
additional compensation to herself and the putative class members
for missed meal and rest breaks and hours worked during missed meal
and rest breaks.
The Plaintiff is employed as an hourly-paid nurse at Virginia Mason
Medical Center in Seattle, Washington.
Virginia Mason Medical Center is a Washington non-profit
corporation with its principal place of business in Seattle,
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamal N. Whitehead, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
810 3rd Ave., No. 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
WALGREEN CO: Neuhoff Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nicholas Neuhoff, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois
corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CIV2000159, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Marin to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 9, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-02439 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges these causes of action against the Defendant:
(1) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (2) Continuing Wages; (3)
Failure to Provide Proper Pay Stubs; and (4) Violation of Unfair
Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
Sharlene P. Meno, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
Irvine, CA 92612-4414
Phone: (949) 223-7000
Fax: (949) 223-7100
Email: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
sharlene.meno@bclplaw.com
WALGREEN CO: Whittington Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES WHITTINGTON,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 34-3030-00274097 (Filed Jan. 24, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on March 19, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00600-WBS-CKD to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the California
Labor Code by failing to provide required meal and rest periods,
and failing to pay overtime wages and minimum wages.
Walgreen operates pharmacy store chain in the United States.
Walgreen specializes in filling prescriptions, health and wellness
products, health information, and photo services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
Irvine, CA 92612-4414
Telephone: (949) 223-7000
Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
E-Mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
WEGMANS FOOD: Misrepresents Vanilla Cake Mix, Santiful Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Santiful, Tameka Rhoden, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Case No.
7:20-cv-02933 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020), seeks damages under
consumer protection laws arising from the Defendant's misleading
representations on its cake mix purporting to be flavored
exclusively by vanilla.
The relevant representations include "Wegmans," "Gluten Free,"
"Vanilla" and "Rich & Indulgent." The Plaintiffs contend that the
Product is misleading because although labeled as "Vanilla Cake
Mix," it has less vanilla than the label represents and contains
non-vanilla flavors which provide the Product's vanilla taste, not
disclosed to consumers on the front label as required by law and
consumer expectations. The source of a food's flavor--from the
characterizing food ingredient, a flavor derived from the
characterizing ingredient, a natural source unrelated to the
characterizing flavor or an artificial source--is material to
consumers, the Plaintiffs say. The Defendant's branding and
packaging of the Product is designed to--and does--deceive,
mislead, and defraud them and other consumers, the Plaintiffs
assert.
The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers like the Plaintiffs,
says the complaint. The value of the Product that the Plaintiffs
purchased and consumed was materially less than its value as
represented by defendant. Had the Plaintiffs and class members
known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would
have paid less for them. As a result of the false and misleading
labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no
less than $2.89 per 14 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Products for personal consumption.
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells cake mix purporting to be flavored exclusively by
vanilla, under the Wegmans brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WELLS FARGO: Ehrenfeld Appeals Order and Judgment in RESPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Faigie Ehrenfeld filed an appeal from the District
Court's memorandum decision and order, dated October 6, 2019, and
judgment dated October 8, 2019, issued in her lawsuit entitled
Ehrenfeld v. Wells Fargo, N.A., Case No. 19-cv-2314, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings this proposed class action against the servicer of her
mortgage loan for claims arising out of her unsuccessful loss
mitigation applications. Her claims arise under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and its implementing regulation,
Regulation X, as well as Section 349 of the New York General
Business Law.
The appellate case is captioned as Ehrenfeld v. Wells Fargo, N.A.,
Case No. 19-3685, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Faigie Ehrenfeld, on behalf of herself and all
individuals similarly situated, is represented by:
Igor Meystelman, Esq.
IM LAW GROUP, P.C.
445 Central Avenue
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: 516-344-8010
E-mail: igor@theimlawgroup.com
Defendant-Appellee Wells Fargo, N.A., is represented by:
Danielle Nicole Oakley, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: 949-823-7921
E-mail: doakley@omm.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces Cordon Suit Over Unlawful Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE FLORENCE BEAUBIEN-CORDON, individually and as the named
representative for others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Case No. 105168885 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., March 19,
2020), alleges that Wells Fargo violated the Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act by engaging in deceptive and unlawful
collection practices in connection to the Plaintiff's real estate
mortgage.
In 1999, Ms. Cordon granted a mortgage to Wells Fargo's
predecessor-in-interest at a fixed rate for 20 years and without
the requirement for escrow for insurance and taxes on property
located at 685 NE 126th Street, in North Miami, Florida. In 2009 or
2010, Wells Fargo's predecessor waived the insurance requirement as
part of a reinstatement agreement.
The Plaintiff contends that Wells Fargo failed and refused to
provide her with any or an adequate explanation--even after several
requests from her and even her counsel wrote to Wells Fargo
requesting one. Instead, Wells Fargo had its counsel write to Ms.
Cordon threatening to commence foreclosure proceedings against the
Property, she adds.
Ms. Cordon brings this class action pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P.
1.220(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) on behalf of herself and a class
consisting of all persons against whose property Wells Fargo has
issued mortgage as security for a real property where Wells Fargo
engaged deceptive and unlawful collection practices.
Ms. Cordon is an individual, who is a resident, owner and mortgagor
of real property located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Wells Fargo
holds the mortgage on Ms. Cordon's property.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Wil Morris, Esq.
Morris Legal, LLC
2800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 530
Miami, FL 33137
Telephone: 305 444-3437
Facsimile: 305 444-3457
E-mail:efile@morrislegalfla.com
- and -
Ron Cordon, Esq.
CORDON LAW OFFICES
Ron Cordon, Esq.
335 NW 54th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 759-2446
ZOOM VIDEO: Faces Gens Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy Statutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Gens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00593 (E.D. Wis., April 12, 2020),
seeks damages and equitable relief to remedy Zoom's common law
unjust enrichment and violations of Wisconsin's medical privacy
statutes, invasion of privacy statutes, unfair and deceptive
practices statutes, as well as the U.S. Department of Commerce
Privacy Shield.
Zoom advertises the secure nature of the platform to guard the
medical, personally identifiable and confidential information of
its users. Zoom also advertises that the platform is "HIPAA
compliant" with medical privacy laws generally, and more
specifically, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Zoom, however, has made conscious decisions
and choices in building its platform with lax security precautions
that allows third parties to obtain unauthorized access to the
medical, confidential, and personally identifiable information of
its users, the Plaintiff alleges.
Even more egregiously, the Plaintiff adds, Zoom itself collects the
Data of its users and discloses that Data for compensation to third
parties like Facebook and LinkedIn, without the consent, adequate
notice or authorization of its users required by numerous privacy
laws.
The Plaintiff regularly communicated with other Class members using
the Zoom platform on mobile devices and desktops to transfer Data.
Zoom provides an online video conferencing platform which includes
conferencing services and meetings for remote locations throughout
the United States as well as other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff represents himself:
Timothy Gens, Esq.
THE TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP
774 Mays Blvd., Suite 10-506
Incline Village, NV 89451
Phone: (650) 380-2060
Email: thg@tlawgroup.com
*********
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 ***