/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200831.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, August 31, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 174
Headlines
AIR FORTE: Monegro Says Website Not Accessible to Blind Buyers
AMERASSIST A/R: Degenhardt Says Collection Letters "Misleading"
AMGEN INC: Humira(R) Biosimilar Suit Antitrust Suit Ongoing
APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ARTHUR J GALLAGHER: Appeal in Micro-Captives Litigation Ongoing
AUTO SYSTEMS: Kinderman Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT Pay Under FLSA
AUTOMONEY INC: M.D.N.C. Remands Cannon Class Suit to Trial Court
AVIVA: Two Law Firms File Breach of Contract Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Pomerantz Sues Over Failure to Refund Tickets
BANK OF HAWAII: Facing Aloha Accounting Suit Over Loan Agent Fees
BANK OF HAWAII: Judge Declines to Issue Final Approval Order
BARNES & NOBLE: Barabas Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. New York
BARNES & NOBLE: Gordon Suit Transferred From D.N.J. to S.D.N.Y.
BARNES & NOBLE: Kinskey Suit Moved From Illinois to S.D. New York
BARNES & NOBLE: Pica Suit Moved From New Jersey to S.D. New York
BARNES & NOBLE: Puleo Suit Moved From New Jersey to S.D. New York
BARNES & NOBLE: Warman Suit Moved From New Jersey to New York
BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cota Says
BYTEDANCE INC: Hong BIPA Suit Moved From N.D. Calif. to N.D. Ill.
CACH LLC: Ahmed Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
CHEMED CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Re-Set to Dec. 8
CHEMED CORP: Lax Suit Against Roto-Rooter Services Ongoing
CINTAS CORP: ERISA-Related Class Action Underway in Ohio
CINTAS CORP: Ohio Class Action Suit Dismissed
COBB & FENDLEY: Leal Seeks Class Status for Hourly Employees Suit
COL 323 CORP: Caminas Seeks Overtime Pay
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Defends Class Suits Over Dog Food Recall
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Suit Over Retirement Income Plan Ongoing
COMERICA BANK: Marrujo Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
COMERICA BANK: Tollen Employment Suit Removed to S.D. California
CONVERSE INC: Campos Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
CVS PHARMACY: Fails to Provide Meal Breaks, Behboudi Suit Claims
DELICIAS TROPICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Alvarez Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: $1.2-Mil. Counsel Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Continues to Defend NY Consolidated Class Suit
DISNEY: Settles 2017 Children's Privacy Class Action
DRAKE INTERIORS: Gomez Seeks Proper OT Pay for Service Technicians
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Barbuto & Johansson Alerts of Class Action Filing
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bribed Legislators to Pass HB6, Emmons Claims
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Singh TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
FREEDOMROADS LLC: Woodings Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
FULFILLMENT LAB: Faces Sihler RICO Class Suit in S.D. California
G2 SECURE: Ivra Labor Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
GARDNER TRUCKING: Castro FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. California
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Order of Dismissal in Consolidated Suit Appealed
HESS CORPORATION: N.Y. App. Div. Flips Class Cert. in Mid Island
HOME RUN: Curry Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
HOUSTON NORTHWEST: Court Tosses Riley's Bid for Injunctive Relief
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Anevski Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees
JACKSON COUNTY, OR: Court Dismisses Hirt's Amended Complaint
JACKSON NATIONAL: Rajpal Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to W.D. Mich.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gregory Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
KELLOGG CO: Arbitration Ongoing in Packaging Statement Suit
LOWES COMPANIES: Belaski Suit Moved From Connecticut to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Bogaert Suit Moved From D. Colorado to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Boyce Suit Moved from S.D.W. Va. to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Cleavenger Suit Moved to W.D. North Carolina
LOWES COMPANIES: Estes Suit Moved From E.D. Arkansas to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Gerber Labor Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Grove Suit Moved From D. Arizona to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Hyde Labor Suit Moved From Maryland to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Martinez Suit Moved From New Mexico to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Neal FLSA Suit Moved From Minnesota to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Nelson Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Roy Labor Suit Moved From D. Mass. to W.D.N.C
LOWES COMPANIES: Rumpke Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to W.D.N.C.
LOWES COMPANIES: Tirado Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to W.D.N.C.
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Strougo Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
MASTEC NORTH: Ureno Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
MAYNE PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price Fixing
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued over Drop in Share Price
MCGRAW HILL: Belen Suit Moved From D. New Jersey to S.D. New York
MCGRAW HILL: Campus Suit Moved From Delaware to S.D. New York
MDL 2738: 2 Johnson & Johnson Talcum Suits Moved to New Jersey
MDL 2741: Mowry v. Monsanto Co. Moved to N.D. California
MDL 2804: 8 Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2804: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Bass v. Purdue Pharma
MDL 2814: 4 Suits vs. Ford Motor Moved to C.D. California
MDL 2909: Honeycutt v. Fair Oaks Transferred to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2944: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 7 JPMorgan PPP Loan Suits
MDL 2947: 19 FLSA Suits v. Lowe's Companies Moved to W.D.N.C.
MDL 2950: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 12 PPP Agent Fee Lawsuits
MDL 2952: Court Denies Bid to Transfer 3 Bank of America PPP Suits
MDL 2954: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Wells Fargo PPP Lawsuits
MMR GROUP: Hernandez Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
MONTGOMERY, MD: Faces Beahn Suit Over Reopening of Schools
NEO CABINET: Galigher Sues in Arkansas Alleging Violation of FLSA
NH SERVICES: Benjamin Labor Suit Seeks Regular and Overtime Wages
NISSAN NORTH: Wins Bid to Dismiss Ellis Suit Over Defective Brake
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge-Related Suit
NSI SERVICES: Torres Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
NUU MD INC: Faces Rivera TCPA Class Suit Over Telemarketing Texts
PANERA BREAD: Sally Suit Over MMPA Breach Moved to E.D. Missouri
PHH MORTGAGE: Samuel FDCPA Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
PHILIP B. WILLETTE: Degenhardt Sues Over Illegal Collection Letter
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit
PVH RETAIL: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
RISE DEVELOPMENT: Morales et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT for Workers
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Sutton Sues Over Refusal to Refund Tuition
ROSALIA'S INC: Ramirez FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
ROSS STORES: Aguilar FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
ROUTE 66 POST: Fails to Timely Pay All Wages, Johnson Suit Claims
RSI HOME: Vasquez Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
RYDER TRUCK: Tobin Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
SAN DIEGO GAS: Radcliff Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
SEPHORA USA: Couture Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
SIGNATURE RETAIL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Parks Claims
SKY SOLAR: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
SNOW COMMERCE: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Gem City Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to S.D. Ill.
STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Sheppard Suit Removed to N.D. California
STATE FARM: Adams Sues over Lapses in Insurance Policy Procedures
SUBARU CORPORATION: Adnan Sues over Defective Fuel Pump
SWEET PETE'S: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TEXTRON INC: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Class Complaint Granted
THOMAS H BOCK: Court Confirms 773K FINRA Award in Milliner Suit
TIKTOK INC: A.S. BIPA Suit Transferred From S.D. to N.D. Illinois
TIKTOK INC: D.M. BIPA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Illinois
TIKTOK INC: P.S. BIPA Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
TIKTOK INC: R.S. BIPA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Illinois
TIKTOK INC: S.A. BIPA Suit Moved From California to N.D. Illinois
TIMOTHY CORDER: Lawson Sues Over Unpaid OT and Misclassification
TOLL GLOBAL: Fail to Provide Suitable Seating, Watson Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Habeas Corpus Bid in Grinis v. FMC Devens Denied
UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to Revive Securities Class Suit
VEGA CAPITAL: Mish Alleges Price-Fixing of NYMEX Crude Contracts
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Shiflett Class Suit in M.D. Florida
VITOL INC: Cummings-Breithaupt Alleges Gas Price Manipulation
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: D.D.C. Narrows Claims in Toggas TILA Suit
WARRENTECH CORP: Court Narrows Jett's Bid for Document Production
WESTROCK SERVICES: Castrejon Labor Suit Moved to E.D. California
WINS FINANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
WW INTERNATIONAL: Quintanilla Suit Removed to C.D. California
ZENITH AMERICAN: Wilson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
[*] New Indian Consumer Protection Act Rules Allow Class Action
*********
AIR FORTE: Monegro Says Website Not Accessible to Blind Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIR FORTE INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06090-ER (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated blind or visually-impaired people, alleges that the
Defendant discriminates against them by failing to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by people with visual disabilities. The
Defendant's website, futurofuturo.com, contains several access
barriers which denied the Plaintiff and Class members full and
equal access to the goods and services offered on the website.
These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) lack of
alternative text, the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical
image that would allow a blind user to differentiate what products
are on the screen; (2) lack of a label element or title attribute
for each field; (3) presence of the same title elements; and (4)
failure to remove a host of broken links, which redirects the
Plaintiff and other users to a non-existent or empty webpages.
Air Forte Inc. is a kitchen range hoods company that owns and
operates the website, futurofuturo.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
AMERASSIST A/R: Degenhardt Says Collection Letters "Misleading"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRIAN DEGENHARDT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERASSIST A/R SOLUTIONS,
INC., and DENTAL OFFICE OF PROSPER, PC, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00579-ALM (E.D. Tex., July 29, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA).
Plaintiff claims that Defendant AmerAssist mailed him a letter on
or about May 19, 2020 in an attempt to collect an alleged debt to
Defendant Dental Office of Prosper, PC. Defendant was demanding for
a $963.70 immediate payment which is allegedly an unauthorized
amount because Defendants failed to adjust the balance with
proceeds from Plaintiff's insurance carrier.
Moreover, Defendant AmerAssist's February 4, 2020 and March 3, 2020
letters were misleading because it used a caduceus symbol and wrote
"DENTAL DEPARTMENT" when in fact it was a third-party debt
collector and not an internal dental department of Defendant Dental
Office of Prosper, PC.
AmerAssist A/R Solutions, Inc. and Dental Office of Prosper, PC are
debt collectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
13601 Preston Rd E770
Dallas, TX 75240
Tel: (214) 494-1668
Fax: (469) 669-0786
Email: shawn@jaffer.law
AMGEN INC: Humira(R) Biosimilar Suit Antitrust Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated antitrust
class action suit related to Humira(R) Biosimilar.
On June 8, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (the Illinois Northern District Court) issued an order
granting the motion by the defendants Amgen, along with AbbVie Inc.
and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Sandoz
and Fresenius Kabi USA LLC., to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint.
On June 29, 2020, the plaintiffs in the antitrust class action
lawsuit filed a status report asking the Illinois Northern District
Court to convert the dismissal to one with prejudice.
On June 30, 2020, the Illinois Northern District Court granted the
motion and the plaintiffs have 30 days therefrom to file their
notice of appeal.
Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.
APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-012335 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., July 30,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged unlawful conduct in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).
According to the complaint, Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on or about
October 24, 2019 and April 7, 2020 in an attempt to promote and
solicit one of its residential rental properties even without
Plaintiff's express written consent to be contacted using an
automatic telephone dialing system.
Moreover, Plaintiff registered the cellular telephone number that
received the text messages on the National Do Not Call Registry on
February 8, 2019.
Apartment Investment and Management Company operates residential
rental properties. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-907-1136
Fax: 855-529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
- and –
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
ARTHUR J GALLAGHER: Appeal in Micro-Captives Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by micro-captives and related entities and
owners who had Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 831(b) tax
benefits disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. (Artex) and other defendants,
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
The named plaintiffs are micro-captives and related entities and
owners who had Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 831(b) tax
benefits disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The named plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of all persons
who were assessed back taxes, penalties or interest by the IRS as a
result of their ownership of or involvement in an IRC Section
831(b) micro-captive during the time period January 1, 2005 to the
present.
The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought by the
named plaintiffs or the putative class.
On August 5, 2019, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration and dismissed the class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held an oral argument on the
appeal on July 7, 2020.
Arthur J. Gallagher said, "We will continue to defend against the
lawsuit vigorously. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however,
and it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of
this matter and the financial impact to us, nor are we able to
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss in connection
with this lawsuit."
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. engages in providing insurance brokerage
and consulting services, and third-party property/casualty claims
settlement and administration services to entities in the U.S. and
abroad. The company is based in Rolling Meadows, Illinois.
AUTO SYSTEMS: Kinderman Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Kinderman v. Auto Systems Centers, Inc.; Katz Midas
Franchisees; Midas Auto Service Experts; Midas Auto and Tire
Experts; Max Auto Supply Company; and Randolph Katz, Case No.
3:20-cv-01749 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 7, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff, individually and as a putative representative for a
collective action, seeking to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff states that from March 2018 through May 2020, he was
a dedicated employee of the Defendants and worked over 40 hours per
week for the Defendants as a store manager at their Midas location
in New Albany, Ohio. He contends that the Defendants paid a
predetermined amount on a weekly basis and did not pay him or the
putative class members overtime for hours worked over 40 per week.
Auto Systems Centers (Midas) is an Employee owned company (ESOP)
and is also the world's largest Midas Franchisee in the Midas
chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8 N. Court St., Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Telephone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
AUTOMONEY INC: M.D.N.C. Remands Cannon Class Suit to Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the
case captioned ALESIA CANNON, et al. v. AUTOMONEY, INC., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-CV-877 (M.D.N.C.).
On May 12, 2020, the United States Magistrate Judge filed a
Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b), which
was served on the parties. The Defendants timely objected to the
Recommendation. After de novo consideration, the Court finds that
the objections do not undermine the Magistrate Judge's analysis,
with which the Court agrees. The Court adopted the Recommendation
in full.
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiffs' complaint asserts
usury damages and treble damages in the alternative. There is no
claim for punitive damages in the complaint and including any
amount for a punitive damages claim is entirely speculative.
District Judge Catherine C. Eagles notes that the Magistrate Judge
appropriately rejected the Defendants' other speculative arguments
about attorneys' fees. The Defendants' numbers are based on a
misperception that the Plaintiffs' claims are basically one hundred
and forty-eight separate lawsuits with little to no overlap in fact
or applicable law, whereas the amended complaint shows, as the
Magistrate Judge pointed out, there is substantial commonality. And
as the Plaintiffs' briefing persuasively indicates, the individual
work needed is likely to be straightforward.
The Defendants contend that the Magistrate Judge did not engage in
a "common sense and experience" approach in evaluating the
attorneys' fees aspect of the jurisdictional minimum. But a review
of the Recommendation shows otherwise. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge's experience-based conclusion that court approval
of a $444,000 fee in this case is highly unlikely, Judge Eagles
states.
No party objected to the Recommendation that the other pending
motions should be terminated without prejudice to refiling in state
court following remand.
Therefore, the Court rules that:
1. the Plaintiffs' motion to remand is GRANTED;
2. the Defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer is terminated
without prejudice as moot; and
3. the Plaintiffs' motions to conduct jurisdictional discovery
and to supplement are terminated without prejudice as moot.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb99yj87 from Leagle.com.
AVIVA: Two Law Firms File Breach of Contract Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Canada, reports that
two law firms have filed a class action lawsuit against Canada's
largest insurance companies, alleging that the insurers are in
breach of their contractual obligations to over 100,000 Canadian
business owners by refusing business interruption insurance claims
related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the complaint filed by the law firms Koskie Minsky and Merchant
Law Group, the insurers are also accused of negligence and breaches
of the duty of good faith.
"Business interruption insurance is designed for circumstances such
as the current pandemic," said Koskie Minsky partner Kirk Baert in
a statement. "Many business owners who have contacted our firm have
paid significant insurance premiums going back a decade or more, to
have business interruption insurance coverage in place, and now
find that their insurance claims are denied without even a cursory
investigation of their business losses during the COVID-19
shutdown."
Baert accuses the Canadian insurance industry of "abandoning small
business owners when coverage is needed most."
"Even at this early stage in the class action process, our firm has
been contacted by more than 500 business owners who are shocked
that despite the temporary closure of their businesses and clinics
due to COVID-19, they are being denied any form of business
interruption coverage," added Merchant Law Group partner Steven
Roxborough.
Roxborough identified several insurers named as defendants in the
lawsuit, including Aviva, Intact, The Co-operators, Wawanesa,
Economical Insurance, Royal & Sun Alliance, "and many other
insurance companies." He also said that these insurers "all seem to
be taking the same blanket denial approach when it comes to
business interruption insurance claims." [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Pomerantz Sues Over Failure to Refund Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID I. POMERANTZ, on behalf of himself and a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FIA Card
Services, N.A., and AAA East Central, Defendants, Case No. CV 20
935338 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl, July 29, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged breach of
contract, misrepresentation and fraud, conversion, and unjust
enrichment.
Plaintiff claims that he was approached by AAA to join the club and
obtain a credit card in which he spend tens of thousands of dollars
using the card to build up points. Plaintiff eventually used his
points in November 2019 to purchase two tickets for a travel to Los
Angeles on March 20, 2020 through Defendants' travel center.
However, Plaintiff was notified through
services@travelcenter.Bankofamerica.com that the flight had been
cancelled by the airline on March 20, 2020 and that they're working
to issue an airline credit for future travel or refund the ticket
to the Original method of payment.
The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to refund Plaintiff
despite his multiple requests for a refund.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of $1,013.20.
Defendant AAA East Central uses credit cards to sell their
programs.
Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and FIA Card Services, N.A. issue
credit cards to consumers in Ohio with the AAA logo, known as
cobranded credit cards. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James S. Wertheim, Esq.
JAMES S WERTHEIM LLC
23811 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 330
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: 216-902-1719
Email: wertheimjim@gmail.com
BANK OF HAWAII: Facing Aloha Accounting Suit Over Loan Agent Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the Bank of Hawaii, together with other
banking institutions, continues to defend a suit initiated by Aloha
Accounting and Tax LLC.
On June 2, 2020, Aloha Accounting and Tax LLC filed a lawsuit
(seeking class action status) against the Bank of Hawaii, First
Hawaiian Bank, American Savings Bank, Central Pacific Bank, and
Kabbage Inc. alleging that the Defendants did not pay agent fees
owed under the CARES Act.
An amended complaint was filed on June 23, 2020, adding Bank of
America as a co-defendant.
Counsel for Aloha Accounting and Tax LLC has brought similar
lawsuits against banks across the country and is seeking to
consolidate the cases in a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in
Arizona federal court.
A hearing before the MDL Panel in Washington DC was set for July
30, 2020.
Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank
holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.
BANK OF HAWAII: Judge Declines to Issue Final Approval Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the judge overseeing litigation related
to overdraft fees has declined to issue an approval order on the
case settlement until the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) notice
period expires on September 25, 2020.
On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a Bank customer primarily alleging the Bank of Hawaii's practice of
determining whether consumer deposit accounts were overdrawn based
on "available balance" (which deducts debit card transactions that
have taken place but which have not yet been posted) was not
properly applied or disclosed to customers.
On October 16, 2019, the Bank reached a tentative settlement with
the named plaintiff, subject to documentation and court approvals.
The settlement provides for forgiveness of certain related and
previously charged off overdraft fees, and a payment by the Company
of $8.0 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which
will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys' fees,
administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release
of all claims asserted against the Company.
On March 12, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
As a result, the Company recorded an $8.0 million liability reserve
relating to this claim.
A court hearing for final approval of the settlement was held on
July 23, 2020. The judge indicated he approved all substantive and
procedural terms of the settlement; however, the judge declined to
issue the approval order until the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
notice period expires on September 25, 2020.
No payments in settlement of this claim will be made prior to this
date.
Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank
holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.
BARNES & NOBLE: Barabas Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA BARABAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION,
INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP;
MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; and PEARSON EDUCATION,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02442 (Filed March 5, 2020), was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square) on Aug. 11, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06314-DLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon
Judge Denise L. Cote.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants entered into the
"Inclusive Access" conspiracy in order to monopolize the market for
sales of course materials in any courses and on any colleges in
which the Inclusive Access policy applies.
Inclusive Access requires students to obtain their course materials
only in an online format and only from their official on-campus
bookstore, and not from any other source, thereby, preventing the
Defendants from facing competition from new print textbooks, used
print textbooks, and other online sources, and also from off-campus
and online bookstores and sellers.
The Defendants' monopolizing the market for the sale of course
materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to charge
higher prices for those course materials with no legitimate
justification, to the detriment of college and graduate students,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Defendants are the dominant publishers of college textbooks and
dominant retail chains operating on-campus college bookstores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Radice, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
34 Sunset Blvd.
Long Beach, NJ 08008
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Glenn A. Clark, Esq.
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
Linda G. Harvey, Esq.
RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP
One Speedwell Avenue
Headquarters Plaza, PO Box 1981
Morristown, NJ 07092-1981
Telephone: (973) 538-0800
E-mail: gclark@riker.com
sedelson@riker.com
lharvey@greenbergdauber.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Gordon Suit Transferred From D.N.J. to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Jerry Gordon and Mohammed
Khalid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE
EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION
GROUP; MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; and PEARSON
EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05535 (Filed May 5, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Foley Square) on Aug. 12, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06335-DLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon
Judge Denise L. Cote.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants entered into the
"Inclusive Access" conspiracy in order to monopolize the market for
sales of course materials in any courses and on any colleges in
which the Inclusive Access policy applies.
Inclusive Access requires students to obtain their course materials
only in an online format and only from their official on-campus
bookstore, and not from any other source, thereby preventing the
Defendants from facing competition from new print textbooks, used
print textbooks, and other online sources, and also from off-campus
and online bookstores and sellers.
The Defendants' monopolizing the market for the sale of course
materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to charge
higher prices for those course materials with no legitimate
justification, to the detriment of college and graduate students,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Defendants are the dominant publishers of college textbooks and
dominant retail chains operating on-campus college bookstores.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
- and -
Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Jr., Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette St.
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6487
E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com
jjagher@fklmlaw.com
skanner@fklmlaw.com
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: KCarroll@CarlsonLynch.com
- and -
Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 588-3400
E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP
One Speedwell Avenue
Headquarters Plaza, PO Box 1981
Morristown, NJ 07092-1981
Telephone: (973) 538-0800
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Kinskey Suit Moved From Illinois to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH KINSKEY and GRACE
KINSKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE
EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION
GROUP; MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; and PEARSON
EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02322 (Filed April 15, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square) on Aug. 12, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06364-DLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon
Judge Denise L. Cote.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants entered into the
"Inclusive Access" conspiracy in order to monopolize the market for
sales of course materials in any courses and on any colleges in
which the Inclusive Access policy applies.
Inclusive Access requires students to obtain their course materials
only in an online format and only from their official on-campus
bookstore, and not from any other source, thereby, preventing the
Defendants from facing competition from new print textbooks, used
print textbooks, and other online sources, and also from off-campus
and online bookstores and sellers.
The Defendants' monopolizing the market for the sale of course
materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to charge
higher prices for those course materials with no legitimate
justification, to the detriment of college and graduate students,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Defendants are the dominant publishers of college textbooks and
dominant retail chains operating on-campus college bookstores.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312.741.1019
Facsimile: 312.264.0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
lynn@feganscott.com
- and -
Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew J. Ewalt, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 777-4591
E-mail: andrew.ewalt@freshfields.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Pica Suit Moved From New Jersey to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC PICA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE
COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL
EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; and PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-04856 (Filed April 22, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Aug.
11, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06317-DLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon
Judge Denise L. Cote.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants entered into the
"Inclusive Access" conspiracy in order to monopolize the market for
sales of course materials in any courses and on any colleges in
which the Inclusive Access policy applies.
Inclusive Access requires students to obtain their course materials
only in an online format and only from their official on-campus
bookstore, and not from any other source, thereby, preventing the
Defendants from facing competition from new print textbooks, used
print textbooks, and other online sources, and also from off-campus
and online bookstores and sellers.
The Defendants' monopolizing the market for the sale of course
materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to charge
higher prices for those course materials with no legitimate
justification, to the detriment of college and graduate
students, says the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts claims under
the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Defendants are the dominant publishers of college textbooks and
dominant retail chains operating on-campus college bookstores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian Murray, Esq.
Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
bmurray@glancylaw.com
bbrooks@glancylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP
One Speedwell Avenue
Headquarters Plaza, PO Box 1981
Morristown, NJ 07092-1981
Telephone: (973) 538-0800
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Puleo Suit Moved From New Jersey to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE PULEO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE
COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL
EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; and PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-04990 (Filed April 23, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Aug.
12, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06333-DLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon
Judge Denise L. Cote.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants entered into the
"Inclusive Access" conspiracy in order to monopolize the market for
sales of course materials in any courses and on any colleges in
which the Inclusive Access policy applies.
Inclusive Access requires students to obtain their course materials
only in an online format and only from their official on-campus
bookstore, and not from any other source, thereby preventing the
Defendants from facing competition from new print textbooks, used
print textbooks, and other online sources, and also from off-campus
and online bookstores and sellers.
The Defendants' monopolizing the market for the sale of course
materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to charge
higher prices for those course materials with no legitimate
justification, to the detriment of college and graduate students,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Defendants are the dominant publishers of college textbooks and
dominant retail chains operating on-campus college bookstores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19131
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
- and -
David P. McLafferty, Esq.
MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 940-4000
E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND AND PERRETTI
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 451-8756
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Warman Suit Moved From New Jersey to New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN WARMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE
COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL
EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; and PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-04875 (Filed April 22, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Aug.
12, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06331-DLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon
Judge Denise L. Cote.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants entered into the
"Inclusive Access" conspiracy in order to monopolize the market for
sales of course materials in any courses and on any colleges in
which the Inclusive Access policy applies.
Inclusive Access requires students to obtain their course materials
only in an online format and only from their official on-campus
bookstore, and not from any other source, thereby, preventing the
Defendants from facing competition from new print textbooks, used
print textbooks, and other online sources, and also from off-campus
and online bookstores and sellers.
The Defendants' monopolizing the market for the sale of course
materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to charge
higher prices for those course materials with no legitimate
justification, to the detriment of college and graduate students,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Defendants are the dominant publishers of college textbooks and
dominant retail chains operating on-campus college bookstores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Radice, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
- and-
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
Austin P. Brane, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com
abrane@wcllp.com
- and -
Brennan P. Fagan, Esq.
FAGAN EMERT & DAVIS, LLC
730 New Hampshire Street, Suite 210
Lawrence, KS 66044
Telephone: 785 331 0300
Facsimile: 785.331.0303
E-mail: bfagan@fed-firm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND AND PERRETTI
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 451-8756
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cota Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER, INC., a
Washington corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01496-LAB-RBB (S.D. Cal., August 3, 2020) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated persons to secure redress against Ben
Bridge-Jeweler, for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people, thus denying the Class of full and equal access to
Defendant's website, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act ("UCRA").
Plaintiff Cota is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Because Defendant's website, https://www.benbridge.com/, is not
fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers in violation of the ADA, Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.
Ben Bridge Jeweler is a Seattle, Washington-headquartered retailer
that sells engagement rings, diamonds and watches, including Rolex,
among other products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
BYTEDANCE INC: Hong BIPA Suit Moved From N.D. Calif. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY HONG, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BYTEDANCE, INC., a
corporation, TIKTOK, INC., a corporation; BEIJING BYTEDANCE
TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD,, a privately-held company; and MUSICAL.LY, a
corporation, Case No. 5:19-cv-07792 (Filed Nov. 27, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 13, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04723 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John Z. Lee.
TikTok's owner, ByteDance, was founded in 2012 and based in
Beijing, China. ByteDance, is well known as a hit app factory that
has spent the last decade using technologies, such as artificial
intelligence and facial recognition. TikTok currently has
approximately 2.4 million active daily users, many of whom are
minors. This action seeks to ensure that minors' privacy is
adequately protected.
In direct violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the
TikTok app's proprietary facial recognition technology scans every
video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data
relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric
identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and
store a template of each face--all without ever informing anyone of
this practice, the complaint says.
TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create
short videos, favored by children and teens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
Thomas R. Freeman, Esq.
Marc E. Masters, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
- and -
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
CACH LLC: Ahmed Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------
SAMEER AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CACH, LLC and Federal Bond and Collection
Service Inc dba FBCS Inc, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02003-M-BT
(N.D. Tex., July 29, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a collection letter
from Defendants on or about July 5, 2020 stating that they are
attempting to collect a debt owed by Plaintiff to Metris Companies,
Inc., and Defendant CACH was the current creditor.
Plaintiff asserts that he has never owed a debt to Metris
Companies, Inc. Additionally, Defendants made a misleading
statement in its Letter for stating that making a payment is not a
substitute for disputing the debt.
Moreover, Defendant FBCS is not licensed to conduct business in the
State of Texas.
CACH, LLC and FBCS are debt collectors that regularly collects or
attempts to collect debts due to third-parties, directly or
indirectly from consumers in the State of Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
13601 Preston Rd E770
Dallas, TX 75240
Tel: (214) 494-1668
Fax: (469) 669-0786
Email: shawn@jaffer.law
CHEMED CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Re-Set to Dec. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the court has re-set the hearing date to
consider final approval of a class action settlement for December
8, 2020.
The Company entered into a settlement agreement in March 2019 that
will resolve state-wide wage and hour class action claims raised in
four separate cases:
(1) Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity
unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number BC 642857 ("Seper");
(2) Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc.,
a California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of
California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of
California, a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number
37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL ("Chhina") (which was subsequently
merged with Seper);
(3) Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case
No. 34-2017-0021-2755 ("Phillips and Moore"); and
(4) Williams v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California,
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 17853886 ("Williams").
These actions were brought by both current and former employees
including a registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse (LVN),
home health aides and a social worker.
Each action stated multiple claims generally including (1) failure
to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide
overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all
hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5)
failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement
expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the
California Private Attorneys General Act.
The cases generally asserted claims on behalf of classes defined to
include all current and former non-exempt employees employed with
VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of
each lawsuit.
The settlement amount of $5.75 million plus employment taxes was
recorded in the first quarter of 2019.
As of December 31, 2019, $6.0 million was accrued in the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. The definition of the
class to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims
raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, claims raised in
Phillips and Moore, as well as any class claims in Williams.
On January 28, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
A notice of the proposed settlement has been sent to the members of
the class by the class claims administrator.
The court has re-set the date for the final approval of the
settlement hearing for December 8, 2020.
Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CHEMED CORP: Lax Suit Against Roto-Rooter Services Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Roto-Rooter Services
Company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Alfred
Lax on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive;
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 18CV338652.
Alfred Lax, a current employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company
("RRSC"), was hired in RRSC's Menlo Park branch in 2007.
On November 30, 2018, Lax filed a class action lawsuit in Santa
Clara County Superior Court alleging (1) failure to provide or
compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay
for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and
(5) unfair business practices.
Lax stated these claims as a representative of a class defined as
all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during the
four years preceding the filing of the complaint.
He seeks a determination that the action may proceed and be
maintained as a class action and for compensatory and statutory
damages (premium payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated
rest periods, wages for time allegedly not paid such as travel
time, repair time, and vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed
expenses), penalties and restitutions, pre- and post-judgement
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.
The lawsuit is, Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number
18CV338652.
The Company intends to defend vigorously against the allegations in
the Lax lawsuit.
Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CINTAS CORP: ERISA-Related Class Action Underway in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class
action suit alleging violations of The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The Company, the Board of Directors, CEO and the Investment Policy
Committee are defendants in a purported class action, filed on
December 13, 2019, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio alleging violations of The Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The lawsuit asserts that the defendants improperly managed the
costs of the employee retirement plan, breached their fiduciary
duties in failing to investigate and select lower cost alternative
funds and failed to monitor and control the employee retirement
plan's recordkeeping costs.
The defendants deny liability.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate
identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire
protection, and first aid and safety services. The company is based
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CINTAS CORP: Ohio Class Action Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
31, 2020, that a purported class action suit before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has been dismissed
without prejudice.
The Company and three executive officers were defendants in a
purported class action, filed on December 12, 2019, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging
violations of federal securities laws.
The lawsuit asserted that the defendants made material
misstatements regarding the Company's margins, earnings guidance
and regulatory compliance that caused the Company's stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices between March 2017 and November
2019.
The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on April 22, 2020.
Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate
identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire
protection, and first aid and safety services. The company is based
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
COBB & FENDLEY: Leal Seeks Class Status for Hourly Employees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRES LEAL, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COBB, FENDLEY &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00372-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"all hourly employees who worked overtime and received a
bonus in a period covering at least one week in which the
employee worked more than 40 hours since March 24, 2017";
2. granting approval and distribution of notice and for
disclosure of contact information; and
3. providing notice to members of any class certified by this
Court pursuant to the current Motion;
The Plaintiff, a former employee of Cobb, Fendley & Associates,
Inc., brought this lawsuit on behalf of all former and current
hourly employees of the Defendant during the relevant time period
who were not exempt from the overtime requirement of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendant provides construction and engineering services. The
Company offers construction management, geographic information
systems, land development, public works, survey, subsurface utility
engineering, and transportation.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mario A. Barrera, Esq.
Stephen J. Romero, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
111 W Houston St Ste 1800
San Antonio, TX 78205-1111
E-mail: mario.barrera@nortonrosefulbright.com
stephen.romero@nortonrosefulbright.com
COL 323 CORP: Caminas Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------
JOSE CAMINAS, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. COL 323 CORP d/b/a THE CLOSET FACTORY, CARMEN ROLDAN and
CELESTINO ROLDAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-23130-CMA (S.D.
Fla., July 29, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for
their alleged intentional and willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant as an installer
assistant from approximately January 2, 2018 through April 5,
2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked 45-47 hours per week
but he was only paid by Defendants regular time at either $10 per
hour or $11 per hour. Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week for
approximately 100 weeks from January 2, 2018 through December
2019.
Carmen Roldan and Celestino Roldan own and operate the Corporate
Defendant.
COL 323 Corp d/b/a The Closet Factory manufactures closets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
Yadhira Ramirez-Toro, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
Emails: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
yramirez@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Defends Class Suits Over Dog Food Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself in
class action lawsuits in the U.S. and in Canada related to a March
2019 voluntary recall of select dog food products.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, Hill Pet Nutrition's
announced a voluntary recall, which was subsequently expanded, of
select canned dog food products due to potentially elevated levels
of Vitamin D resulting from a supplier error. In the United States,
the voluntary recall was conducted in cooperation with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.
Following the announcement of the voluntary recall, and as of June
30, 2020, Hill's and/or the Company have been named as defendants
in 37 putative class action lawsuits, one putative class action
filed on behalf of a European Union class and one individual
action, all related to the voluntary recall and filed in various
jurisdictions in the United States.
In addition, two putative class actions related to the voluntary
recall have been filed in Canada.
Eight of the putative class actions lawsuits in the United States
and one of the putative class action lawsuits in Canada have been
voluntarily dismissed.
Hill's is entitled to indemnification from the supplier related to
the voluntary recall. Sales of products voluntarily recalled
represent less than 2% of Hill's annual Net sales.
The sales loss and other costs associated with the voluntary recall
and subsequent expansion did not have a material impact on the
Company's Net sales or Operating profit and are not expected to
have a material impact in future periods.
Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Suit Over Retirement Income Plan Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that a trial court has granted, in part, and
denied, in part, the company's motion for summary judgment in the
class action suit related to its Employees' Retirement Income Plan.
In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the
"Plan") did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
This action has been certified as a class action and, in July 2020,
the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
for summary judgment.
The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.
The Company is contesting this action vigorously.
Colgate-Palmolive said, "Since the range of any potential loss from
this case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range of
reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities
disclosed above does not include any amount relating to the case."
Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
COMERICA BANK: Marrujo Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GLADYS MARRUJO, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COMERICA BANK, a
Texas Corporation; COMERICA INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation;
and COMERICA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Michigan Corporation; and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00016603-CU-OE-CTL
(Filed May 26, 2250), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01523-BEN-LL to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action, including
Defendants' failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize
and permit rest periods; failure to reimburse business expenses;
failure to pay all wages; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to pay compensation when due at time of
separation; and unlawful and unfair business practices.
Comerica is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas,
Texas. Comerica has retail banking operations in Texas, Michigan,
Arizona, California and Florida, with select business operations in
several other U.S. states, as well as in Canada and Mexico.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq.
Limore Torbati, Esq.
Timothy T. Kim, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: 213 620 1780
Facsimile: 213 620 1398
E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com
ltorbati@sheppardmullin.com
tkim@sheppardmullin.com
COMERICA BANK: Tollen Employment Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL TOLLEN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COMERICA
INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; COMERICA BANK, a Texas
Corporation; and COMERICA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Michigan
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00016620-CU-OE-CTL (Filed May 26, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Aug. 6,
2020.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01529-MMA-KSC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts in his complaint that the Defendants employed
him and other persons as "Customer Service Representatives" (bank
tellers) throughout the state of California and he seeks to
represent a class of former and current bank tellers for the time
period May 26, 2016, to the present.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action including
failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit
rest periods; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to
pay all wages; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to pay compensation when due at time of
separation; and unlawful and unfair business practices.
Comerica is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq.
Limore Torbati, Esq.
Timothy T. Kim, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: 213 620 1780
Facsimile: 213 620 1398
E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com
ltorbati@sheppardmullin.com
tkim@sheppardmullin.com
CONVERSE INC: Campos Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRES CAMPOS, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. CONVERSE,
INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2009429 (Filed
May 29, 2020), 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 Aug. 7, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01576 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action against Converse
including failure to pay compensation due; meal period violations;
rest period violations; failure to pay wages timely upon
termination; and violation of California business and professions
code.
Converse is an American shoe company that designs, distributes, and
licenses sneakers, skating shoes, lifestyle brand footwear,
apparel, and accessories. Founded in 1908, it has been a subsidiary
of Nike, Inc. since 2003. During World War II, Converse shifted its
manufacturing to make footwear for the military.[BN]
The Defendant Converse Inc. is represented by:
Matthew A. Tobias, Esq.
Limore Torbati, Esq.
Aracely Abarca, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: 213-620-1780
Facsimile: 213-620-1398
E-mail: mtobias@sheppardmullin.com
ltorbati@sheppardmullin.com
aabarca@sheppardmullin.com
CVS PHARMACY: Fails to Provide Meal Breaks, Behboudi Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEHBOUDI, AMIR, AN INDIVIDUAL, FOR HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., A RHODE ISLAND CORPORATION and DOES
1-50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20585042 (Cal. Super., County of San
Francisco, Aug. 12, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, and to reimburse business
expenses and waiting time penalties in violations of the California
Labor Code.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case
management conference will be held on Nov. 25, 2020.
The Plaintiff contends that each of the class members worked as
pharmacists for CVS, which classified them as non-exempt employees
and paid them hourly, as California law requires. But, in violation
of the Labor Code, CVS required them to stay logged into CVS's
pharmacy software, respond to their supervisor's inquiries, and
provide customer service during their meal and rest breaks. CVS,
thus, systematically failed to provide pharmacists with breaks and
owes them unpaid wages, penalties, interests, and their attorneys'
fees for failing to provide meal and rest breaks.
CVS Pharmacy is an American retail corporation. Owned by CVS
Health, it is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS was
also known as, and originally named, the Consumer Value Store and
was founded in Lowell, Massachusetts, in 1963.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
GALLO LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415 257 8800
E-mail: rgallo@gallo.law
DELICIAS TROPICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Alvarez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELICIAS TROPICAL RESTAURANT INC.; MARINA
PALMA; SULMA MUSA; and MARIA GALBIS, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03224 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Alvarez was employed by the Defendants as waitress.
Delicias Tropical Restaurant Inc. is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
DEUTSCHE BANK: $1.2-Mil. Counsel Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Order granting motion of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in the case captioned In re DEUTSCHE
BANK AG SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
1:09-cv-01714-DAB-RWL (S.D.N.Y.).
The Court awards Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
one-third of the Settlement Amount, plus expenses in the amount of
$1,203,502.39, together with the interest earned on both amounts
for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the
Settlement Fund until paid. The Court finds that the amount of fees
awarded is fair, reasonable, and appropriate under the
"percentage-of-recovery" method.
The awarded attorneys' fees and expenses and interest earned
thereon, shall be paid to Lead Counsel subject to the terms,
conditions, and obligations of the Parties' Stipulation of
Settlement dated November 11, 2019.
The Settlement has created a fund of $18,500,000 in cash that is
already on deposit, and numerous Class Members who submit, or have
submitted, valid Proof of Claim and Release forms will benefit from
the Settlement created by the Lead Counsel. Any appeal or any
challenge affecting this Court's approval regarding the Fee Motion
shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment
entered with respect to the Settlement.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(4), the Court awards the
total amount of $20,000 to Class Plaintiffs Norbert G. Kaess and
Maria Farruggio for the time they spent directly related to their
representation of the Class.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y84hhcy5 from Leagle.com.
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Continues to Defend NY Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
In July and August 2019, shareholders filed putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the Northern District of Ohio.
The lawsuits collectively assert that the Company and three former
officers made material misstatements regarding the Company's
business and operations, causing the Company's common shares to be
overvalued from February 14, 2017 to August 1, 2018.
The lawsuits have been consolidated before a single judge in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and lead plaintiffs appointed.
Diebold said, "While management remains confident that it has valid
defenses to these claims, as with any pending litigation, the
Company is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, incorporated on August 11, 1876,
provides connected commerce services, software and technology. The
Company's geographic segments include North America (NA), Asia
Pacific (AP), Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and Latin
America (LA). These segments sell and service financial
self-service (FSS), retail solutions and security systems. The
Company provides connected commerce solutions to financial
institutions. The company is based in North Canton, Ohio.
DISNEY: Settles 2017 Children's Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Jackie Allen, writing for USA Herald, reports that the Walt Disney
Company, along with Nickelodeon, the parent company of Viacom, and
others have agreed to settle with parents who filed a 2017
class-action lawsuit against them.
The agreement has been submitted to U.S. District Court Judge James
Donato in the Northern District of California. The class-action
complaints were brought by parents for violations of their
children's privacy rights.
There have been several high-profile cases regarding privacy
concerns lately. Online users' private data is at risk of being
harvested for advertising purposes, and it would seem that even
children are not safe.
The defendants here are a group of media and tech companies who
have agreed to change how children's data is collected and how it
is used across their apps and games. And to practice new and
stricter business practices to assure compliance with the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
The lawsuit against Viacom, Walt Disney Company, and others alleges
that the personal data of children was misused. Data is collected
when children download and play the defendants' apps and games.
Embedded advertising software then gathers and sends the data to
networks of advertisers.
The advertising networks use that data to target children. Both the
gaming app developers and their ad partners share the revenue
generated from the alleged breach of privacy.
"Current privacy expectations are developing, to say the least,
with respect to a key issue raised in these cases -- whether the
data subject owns and controls his or her personal information, and
whether a commercial entity that secretly harvests it commits a
highly offensive or egregious act," Judge Donato said last year
when he ruled the case should go forward.
The plaintiffs issued a statement calling the settlement an
"excellent result." They feel certain that the agreement to
restrict the collection and use of children's data will affect
"fundamental principles" reinforcing COPPA and further protect
children from being exploited online for marketing purposes.
The parents are hopeful that the restrictions on the apps named in
the suit will set a precedent. And can be used against the
developers of thousands of other apps and games that harvest
private data as a marketing tool. [GN]
DRAKE INTERIORS: Gomez Seeks Proper OT Pay for Service Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIO GOMEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff(s), v. DRAKE INTERIORS, INC., Defendant(s),
Case No. 4:20-cv-02706 (S.D. Tex., August 3, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
individually and on behalf of all current and former employees of
Defendant who were paid at the same rate of pay for all of the
hours they worked during the past three years to recover back
wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219 ("FLSA").
The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing Gomez and other
similarly situated employees "for a workweek longer than forty
hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in
excess of [forty] hours … at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate at which [they were or are]
employed."
Defendant willfully violated the FLSA because it knew or showed a
reckless disregard for whether its pay practices were unlawful.
Gomez brings this action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
individually and on behalf of all current and former employees of
Drake Interiors who were paid at the same rate of pay for all of
the hours they worked or worked as field service technicians during
the past three years.
Drake Interiors is a Texas-based commercial interior construction
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Renu Tandale, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
renu@mooreandassociates.net
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Barbuto & Johansson Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel,
Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action
experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON), on Aug.
10 announce that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Akron, Ohio's FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE) on behalf
of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between February
21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Class Action attorney Neil Rothstein, from Akron, encourages
investors who purchased FE common stock during the Class Period to
contact BARJO before September 28, 2020 - the deadline to petition
the court to serve as a lead plaintiff. Rothstein has represented
both institutional and large individual investors in securities
class actions nationwide. The case, Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03785, has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Shareholders of FE may contact Anthony Barbuto, Esq. by phone at
(888) 715-2520 or by email at anthony@barjolaw.com; or Neil
Rothstein, Esq. by phone at (330) 860-4092 or by email at
neil@barjolaw.com.
The lawsuit alleges, in part, that FirstEnergy Corp. and certain of
its executives, made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's internal controls, business practices and
prospects. Specifically, it is alleged in the Complaint that the
defendants touted FirstEnergy's legislative "solutions" to problems
with its nuclear facilities, but failed to disclose that these
"solutions" centered on an illicit campaign to corrupt high-profile
state legislators in order to secure legislation favoring the
Company.
When the Company's alleged tactics were revealed to the public in
connection with the $60 million racketeering and bribery scheme,
the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio revealed what
he called the largest bribery and money-laundering scheme in state
history. Upon the charge, shares plunged approximately 45%.
FirstEnergy traded at $41.64 on June 21 and plunged as low as
$22.85 the next day.
BARJO follows the principles set forth in the case Berger v.
Compaq, 257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001) which states "[c]lass action
lawsuits are intended to serve as a vehicle for capable, committed
advocates to pursue the goals of the class members through counsel,
not for capable, committed counsel to pursue their own goals
through the class members." BARJO believes strongly that the choice
of a qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case.
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
http://www.barjolaw.com[GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bribed Legislators to Pass HB6, Emmons Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL EMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION, OHIO EDISON COMPANY,
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
A/K/A THE ILLUMINATING COMPANY, and FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS N/K/A
ENERGY HARBOR COMPANY, Defendants, (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga
Cty., August 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendants are engaged in a
pattern of illegal bribes, kickbacks, and misuses of customer funds
to ensure the passage and implementation of House Bill 6 (HB6), the
Ohio Clean Air Program. The Defendants' unlawful conducts include,
but not limited to:
(a) funneling tens of millions of dollars of customer revenue
into "social welfare" organization or a 501(c)(4) under IRS rules,
and Political Action Committees (PACs) to be transferred to state
legislators in exchange for their support of HB6;
(b) paying direct and indirect contributions to ensure the
election of Larry Householder as Speaker of the House in exchange
for quid pro quo of the passage of HB6;
(c) paying direct and indirect contributions to ensure
legislators supportive of a legislative solution were elected to
the House;
(d) lobbying for and/or assisting in the drafting of HB6,
which created billions of dollars of guaranteed income for
Defendants contrary to Defendants' responsibilities to customers to
deliver low cost energy;
(e) misappropriating and/or misusing customer funds for uses
outside of the scope of the normal customer relationship and the
contracts with the Plaintiff and the Class;
(f) obstructing, bribing, and/or engaging in harassment to
prevent a referendum in opposition to HB6; and
(g) violating internal policies and procedures related to
corporate conduct and political activity.
By these actions, the Defendants failed to adhere to their own
policies and procedures to operate their businesses in good faith
and in the best interests of their customers.
FirstEnergy Corporation is an investor-owned energy holding company
providing utility services by and through its subsidiaries, with a
principal place of business in Akron, Ohio.
Ohio Edison Company is an electric distribution company providing
services across Central and Northeastern Ohio.
Toledo Edison Company is an electric distribution company providing
services across Northwestern Ohio.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, a/k/a The Illuminating
Company, is an electric distribution company providing services
across Northeastern Ohio.
FirstEnergy Solutions, n/k/a Energy Harbor Company, is an electric
distribution company with a principal place of business in Akron,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Michael Galvin, Esq.
GALVIN LAW GROUP, LLC
23 Plantation Park, Suite 503
P.O. Box 887
Bluffton, SC 29910
Telephone: (843) 227-2231
Facsimile: (888) 362-0714
E-mail: ggalvin@galvinlawgroup.com
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Singh TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mony Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01676-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., Aug. 21,
2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system", to
place its text message to the Plaintiff seeking to sell or solicit
its business services, according to the complaint. The Defendant's
calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. In
addition, on at least one occasion, the Plaintiff answered the
telephone and told the Defendant to stop calling him. Accordingly,
the Defendant never received the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Lathrop, California.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION is a home mortgage company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
FREEDOMROADS LLC: Woodings Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KAMELA WOODINGS, on behalf of
herself and all other members of the putative class v.
FREEDOMROADS, LLC d/b/a CAMPING WORLD, a Minnesota Limited
Liability Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV24159 (Filed June 25, 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
Aug. 6, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07072 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts causes of action, including unpaid minimum
wages; unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest
period premiums; final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage
statements; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; breach of contract;
accounting; and violation of California Business & Professions
Code.
Camping World is an American corporation specializing in selling
recreational vehicles, recreational vehicle parts, and recreational
vehicle service.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rebecca Aragon, Esq.
Hovannes G. Nalbandyan, Esq.
Laura E. Schneider, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 W. Fifth Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 443 4300
Facsimile: 213 443 4299
E-mail: Raragon@littler.com
Hnalbandyan@littler.com
Lschneider@littler.com
FULFILLMENT LAB: Faces Sihler RICO Class Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fulfillment Lab,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Janet Sihler and Charlene
Bavencoff, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. The Fulfillment Lab, Inc.; Richard Nelson; John Does
1-10; and Beyong Global Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-01528-JM-MSB (S.D.
Cal., Aug. 6, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
The Fulfillment Lab is third party shipping and warehousing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin Michael Kneupper, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY PC
321 North Orange Street, Apartment 306
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (512) 420-8407
E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
G2 SECURE: Ivra Labor Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CHAARVINA IVRA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G2 SECURE STAFF,
L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22490 (Filed June 9, 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 Aug. 13, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07325 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the
California Labor Code for failure to pay all lawful wages owed;
failure to pay wages on a weekly basis; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to permit rest breaks; failure to reimburse
business expenses; and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.
G2 Secure provides human resource services. The Company offers
aviation staffing and security solutions including terminal,
security, aircraft appearance, ramp, passenger service, cargo and
maintenance services.[BN]
Defendant G2 Secure is represented by:
Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
Linda Z. Shen, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 612 2500
Facsimile: 213 612 2501
E-mail: rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com
kathy.gao@morganlewis.com
linda.shen@morganlewis.com
GARDNER TRUCKING: Castro FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARCELINO BENITEZ CASTRO, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public v. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV001617 (Filed June 10,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Monterey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-05473 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Gardner Trucking is an all-encompassing premium trucking company
and logistics service provider offering services, including
Truckload, LTL, Dedicated, Refrigerated & Port Drayage
transportation along with Warehousing & Storage services.[BN]
Defendant Gardner Trucking is represented by:
Kristen J. Nesbit, Esq.
Shaun J. Voigt, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: knesbit@fisherphillips.com
svoigt@fisherphillips.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Order of Dismissal in Consolidated Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
consolidated Birnbaum and Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds
suit, have taken an appeal from a court decision dismissing their
complaint.
In February 2019, two putative class actions (the Birnbaum v.
General Electric Company, Case No. 19-cv-1013 case and the SHEET
METAL WORKERS LOCAL 17 TRUST FUNDS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, JOHN L. FLANNERY, RUSSELL STOKES, and JAMIE S. MILLER, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01244 case) were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers.
In April 2019, the court issued an order consolidating these two
actions. In June 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint.
It alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements regarding GE's
H-class turbines and goodwill related to GE's Power business. The
lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE
stock between December 4, 2017 and December 6, 2018. In August
2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
In May 2020 the court granted GE's motion to dismiss the case, and
in June 2020 the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Second
Circuit.
General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
HESS CORPORATION: N.Y. App. Div. Flips Class Cert. in Mid Island
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued a Decision and Order reversing the Supreme
Court's Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned MID ISLAND LP, DOING BUSINESS
AS, MADISON MANAGEMENT OF QUEENS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents v.
HESS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 11626, 650911/13
(N.Y. App. Div.).
The Order of the New York Supreme Court, New York County, was
entered on May 10, 2019, granting the Motion.
The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' claim, and that for which they seek
class certification, is that the Defendant provided them and others
similarly situated "with inferior, adulterated heating oil, i.e.
that the fuel oil that was delivered to them contained oils of
lesser value mixed into the ordered grade of fuel oil, so that the
delivered product did not meet the standards of the parties'
contracts" (citing BMW Group LLC v Castle Oil Corp., 139 A.D.3d 78,
80 [1st Dept 2016]).
Contrary to the Defendant's contention, this is the predominant
question of law and fact in this case, and it is common among the
class, according to the Decision and Order. In any event, "the fact
that questions peculiar to each individual may remain after
resolution of the common questions is not fatal to the class
action" (citing City of New York v Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 514 [2010];
and Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC, 34 N.Y.3d 116, 125 [2019]).
Moreover, "CPLR article 9 affords the trial court considerable
flexibility in overseeing a class action," and the court could even
"decertify the class at any time before a decision on the merits if
it becomes apparent that class treatment is inappropriate" (Maul,
14 NY3d at 513-514). The Supreme Court is more than able to
recognize if its class certification becomes unduly cumbersome,
and, if so, how best to fashion a remedy.
The Appellate Division notes that the Plaintiffs failed to submit
admissible evidence demonstrating that the numerosity prerequisite
to class certification was satisfied. However, the record suggests
that such evidence is in the Plaintiffs' possession but simply was
not submitted in connection with their Motion. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs are given leave to renew their Motion for class
certification, upon admissible evidence providing a sufficient
basis for determining the size of the potential class.
Accordingly, the Order granting the Motion is unanimously reversed,
on the law and the facts, without costs, and the Motion is denied,
and the class decertified, without prejudice to renewal upon
evidence sufficient to establish numerosity of the proposed class.
A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 11, 2020 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxsgs39 from
Leagle.com.
White & Case LLP, New York (Kimberly A. Havlin --
kim.haviv@whitecase.com -- of counsel), for Appellant.
Grossman LLP, New York (Judd B. Grossman --
jgrossman@grossmanllp.com -- of counsel), for Respondents.
HOME RUN: Curry Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------
BROOK CURRY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. HOME RUN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00336 (E.D. Tenn., August 3, 2020) is a collective action
brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and under Tennessee common
law to recover unpaid wages owed to herself and similarly situated
persons employed by Defendant at its Papa John's franchise stores.
Defendant operates numerous Papa John's franchise stores. Defendant
employs delivery drivers including Plaintiff who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provide 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
minimum wage during some or all workweeks.
Defendant's delivery driver reimbursement policy reimburses drivers
on a per-delivery basis, but the per-delivery reimbursement equates
to below the Internal Revenue Service business mileage
reimbursement rate or any other reasonable approximation of the
cost to own and operate a motor vehicle. This policy applies to all
of Defendant' delivery drivers.
In sum, Defendant's reimbursement policy and methodology fail to
reflect the realities of delivery drivers' automobile expenses.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from 2006-2007 and 2018-2019 as
a delivery driver at Defendant's Papa John's stores in Tennessee.
Home Run, Inc. d/b/a Papa John's is a Tennessee-based pizza
restaurant chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
joeyl@bsjfirm.com
HOUSTON NORTHWEST: Court Tosses Riley's Bid for Injunctive Relief
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part
and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned AISHA
RILEY, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
HOUSTON NORTHWEST OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., a Texas Limited
Liability Company d/b/a "HCA Houston Healthcare Northwest" and
Houston Northwest Medical Center"; and GULF COAST DIVISION, INC., a
Texas Corporation, d/b/a "HCA Houston Healthcare," Case No.
H-19-2496 (S.D. Tex.).
Plaintiff Aisha Riley, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, asserts claims against Houston Northwest
Operating Company and Gulf Coast Division, Inc., for declaratory
and injunctive relief under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("DTPA") and Texas common law.
On December 24, 2018, Plaintiff received treatment at one of
Defendants' hospitals, Houston Northwest Medical Center, where she
signed the Patient Contract. The total bill for the services she
received was $10,381.22, including the Service Fee of $2,208.93.
The hospital's contract with the Plaintiff's health insurer reduced
the bill to $5,331.94 and to $963.47 for the Service Fee. The
hospital billed the balance of the $10,381.22 ($4,085.81) to the
Plaintiff because it did not exceed the deductible in her health
insurance plan. The parties agree that the Plaintiff never paid
this bill. The account was referred to a debt collection agency,
which has sent the Plaintiff a letter of intent to collect.
The Plaintiff filed her Original Class Action Complaint on July 10,
2019. Her live pleading is her Second Amended Complaint filed on
September 11, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants'
failure to disclose the Service Fee to emergency room patients in
advance of treatment is unconscionable under Texas common law and
violates the DTPA. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that the
Defendants' billing practices are unconscionable under Texas law
and violate the DTPA, and that the Service Fee ($963.47) is not
owed under the Patient Contract. The Plaintiff also seeks an
injunction under the DTPA preventing Defendants from collecting the
fee from patients who were not given prior notice of the fee and
requiring the Defendants to give future patients such notice. The
Plaintiff does not seek monetary damages.
On November 11, 2019, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss
contending that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over
the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendants contend that the Court lacks
Article III subject-matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiff does
not have standing. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not
suffered an injury in fact and that the relief sought will not
redress any such injury. The Defendants seek dismissal of the
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Conclusion and Order
Senior District Judge Sim Lake writes that the Court concludes that
the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact in the form of the
outstanding balance and that some of her requested relief will
likely redress the injury. The Defendants do not dispute that the
injury is fairly traceable to their alleged conduct. The Plaintiff,
therefore, has Article III standing to pursue her claims as to the
validity of the Service Fee that she was charged. The Plaintiff
does not, however, have standing to seek injunctions affecting the
Defendants' unrelated future conduct.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has Article III standing to
seek relief for the outstanding balance she owes under her contract
with the Defendants. But the Plaintiff does not have standing to
seek injunctions against the Defendants for their future conduct
unrelated to that obligation. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the injunctions sought in the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint and is otherwise
DENIED.
Moreover, the Court's Order Granting Joint Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Class Certification Briefs is VACATED, and the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Amended Motion for
Class Certification within 14 days of the entry of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order. The Parties' briefs on class certification are
REQUIRED to address the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd2tcumk from
Leagle.com.
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Anevski Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE ANEVSKI , individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, N.A.; PNC
BANK, N.A.; CIVISTA BANK, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03646-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, July 18, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants to obtain Agent Fees owed to the Plaintiff
and members of the Class, as a result of work performed as Agents
who assist small business borrowers (the "Applicants") in obtaining
federally guaranteed loans through the Paycheck Protection Program
("PPP").
According to the comoplaint, the PPP is a federal program
implemented on March 25, 2020, to provide small businesses with
federally guaranteed loans to assist with payroll expenses to and
thereby help combat the economic impact of COVID-19. The
legislation implementing the PPP program is the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act").
To encourage the obtainment of PPP loans by small businesses, the
CARES Act and federal regulations promulgated also require the
payment of a fee to Agents ("Agent Fees") who assist eligible
borrowers in preparing their PPP loan application ("Agents") in an
amount not in excess of limits established by the Administrator of
the SBA.
Despite the requirements in the CARES Act and regulations
promulgated, specifically stating that Agent Fees are owed to the
Plaintiff and the Class Members, the Defendants have failed to pay
the Plaintiff and the Class Members the mandatory Agent Fees
required by the CARES Act and federal regulations. Instead, the
Defendants have refused to pay and kept the Agent Fees that the SBA
gives the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff and the Class Members.
The Huntington National Bank provides banking services. The Bank
offers saving accounts, cards, insurance, mortgage, treasury
management, foreign exchange, loans, and equipment leasing
services. The Huntington National Bank serves clients in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick G. Warner, Esq.
Darrin C. Leist, Esq.
LEIST WARNER, LLC
513 East Rich Street, Suite 201
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 222-1000
Facsimile: (614) 222-0808
E-mail: pwarner@leistwarner.com
dleist@leistwarner.com
- and -
Michael E. Adler, Esq.
GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
26500 Agoura Road, #102-127
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 532-2833
Facsimile: (818) 532-2834
- and -
Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 625-3900
Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
- and -
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 Post St., Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
JACKSON COUNTY, OR: Court Dismisses Hirt's Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an Order
dismissing the Action in the case captioned PATRICK HIRT; WARREN
RICH; RYAN SMITH; RYAN CONNER; and LUCIOUS RAY v. JACKSON COUNTY;
JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT GERKING; BEN BLOOM; DAVID HOPE; KELLY
RAVASSIPOUR; LAURA CROMWELL; LISA GREIF; and TIM BARNACK, Case No.
1:19-cv-00887-AC (D. Ore.).
The Court DISMISSES the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. Because it
is clear that the deficiencies of the Amended Complaint cannot be
cured by amendment to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint is not granted. The dismissal is without
prejudice to the right to pursue appropriate state and federal
remedies. Because Plaintiff Patrick Hirt has not established
extraordinary circumstances, the court DENIES his Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. All other pending motions are DENIED AS
MOOT.
Pro se Plaintiff Patrick Hirt, an adult in custody at the Jackson
County Jail ("AIC Hirt"), purports to bring this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of himself and
four other adults in custody. Pursuant to an Order, the Court
granted AIC Hirt's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
AIC Hirt initiated this action by filing a Complaint identifying
himself as the sole plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently filed an
Amended Complaint purporting to add four additional plaintiffs,
adults in custody Warren Rich, Ryan Smith, Ryan Conner, and Lucious
Roy. Only AIC Hirt, however, signed the Complaint, and only AIC
Hirt submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Amended Complaint is a 73-page narrative of how the Jackson
County Circuit Court addresses booking, arraignment, and bail
consideration hearings of adults in custody. The Amended Complaint
alleges the Jackson County Circuit Court judges utilize a
wealth-based detention scheme to refuse pre-trial release to
impoverished pre-trial detainees in violation of the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. By
way of remedy, the Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief.
Chief District Judge Marco Antonio Hernandez states that the
73-page Amended Complaint does not satisfy the pleading
requirements of Rule 3 or Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which requires that a complaint must contain "a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief," and that "Each allegation must be simple,
concise and direct."
The Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of four other
adults in custody, and also seeks class certification. Judge
Hernandez opines that pro se litigants have no authority to
represent anyone other than themselves; therefore, they lack the
representative capacity to file motions and other documents on
behalf of other individuals, citing See Johns v. County of San
Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997).
Therefore, to avoid the problems related to case-management and
filing fees, permissive joinder of the additional four named adults
in custody as co-plaintiffs in this action is denied. Accordingly,
the action will proceed with AIC Hirt as the sole plaintiff, and
the claims of Warren Rich, Ryan Smith, Ryan Conner, and Lucious Ray
are dismissed without prejudice.
According to Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986),
"Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely
immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official
capacities." Additionally, judicial immunity extends to preclude
prospective injunctive relief against a state court judge for acts
or omissions made in that judge's official capacity.
Judge Hernandez notes that it is clear from the Amended Complaint
that the Jackson County Circuit Judges' actions in presiding over
arraignments and bail release determinations were taken in their
judicial capacity. Further the Amended Complaint does not allege
any facts demonstrating that the Judges' actions were taken in the
complete absence of all jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Defendant
Jackson County Circuit Judges are absolutely judicially immune from
this Section 1983 action.
Judge Hernandez also notes that the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, may not be used as a vehicle by which to enjoin
ongoing state criminal proceedings. Although the Amended Complaint
is styled as a Section 1983 action, the claims allege due process
and equal protection violations in relation to bail. Judge
Hernandez opines that these allegations fall within the core of
habeas corpus because they challenge the fact or duration of
confinement, citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005).
Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb9xbbtp from Leagle.com.
JACKSON NATIONAL: Rajpal Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to W.D. Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SUNEEL RAJPAL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JACKSON NATIONAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-01757 (Filed March 11,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan on Aug. 11, 2020.
The Western District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00748-RJJ-SJB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker.
The lawsuit is a purported class action for breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and conversion to recover amounts that the Defendant
charged the Plaintiff and the putative Classes in excess of the
amounts authorized by the express terms of their life insurance
policies.
The Defendant is a for-profit life insurer that has entered into
universal life policies with the Plaintiff and the putative
Classes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 986-1400
Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
- and -
Paul W. Evans, Esq.
Rachel Nichole Boyd, Esq.
W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric S. Mattson, Esq.
Nicole Marie Ryan, Esq.
Rachel Lauren Hampton, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-4716
E-mail emattson@sidley.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gregory Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SONNA GREGORY, Individually,
and WILLIAM GREGORY, Individually v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a Foreign
Corporation, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., a Foreign
Corporation f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., PTI
ROYSTON, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company d/b/a PHARMA TECH
INDUSTRIES, CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY f/k/a CYPRUS MINES
CORPORATION and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS NOS. 1-10, Case No. 20A79468
(Filed March 3, 2020), was removed from the Georgia State Court,
DeKalb County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-10112 to the proceeding.
Plaintiff Sonna Gregory allege that she applied JJCI's Johnson's
(TM) Baby Powder for "feminine hygiene" and that such use caused
her to develop ovarian cancer.
Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer
packaged goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert D. Cheeley, Esq.
Julia A. Merritt, Esq.
CHEELEY LAW GROUP, LLC
2500 Old Milton Parkway, Suite 200
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Telephone: (770) 861-4100
E-mail: bob@cheeleylawgroup.com
julia@cheeleylawgroup.com
- and -
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
John R. Bevis, Esq.
Benjamin R. Rosichan, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
bevis@barneslawgroup.com
brosichan@barneslawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Caroline M. Gieser, Esq.
Colin K. Kelly, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
1230 Peachtree St., Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (470) 867-6000
Facsimile: (470) 867-6001
E-mail: ckelly@shb.com
cgieser@shb.com
KELLOGG CO: Arbitration Ongoing in Packaging Statement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the parties in the class action suit related to
packaging statements in the company's products are continuing
arbitration.
In 2016, a class action complaint was filed against Kellogg in the
Northern District of California relating to statements made on
packaging for certain products.
In August 2019, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding
certain statements made on the Company's products and ordered the
parties to conduct settlement discussions related to all matters in
dispute.
In October 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion to the Court to
approve a settlement between Kellogg and the class. During 2019,
the Company concluded that the contingency related to the
unfavorable ruling was probable and estimable, resulting in a
liability being recorded.
In February 2020, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to approve
the settlement and the parties are continuing arbitration.
This litigation, including any potential settlement, is not
expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated
financial statements.
The Company will continue to evaluate the likelihood of potential
outcomes as the litigation continues.
Kellogg Company manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and
other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals,
cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks,
frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in
the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the
world. The company is based in Battle Creek, Michigan.
LOWES COMPANIES: Belaski Suit Moved From Connecticut to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BELASKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00343 (Filed March 13, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 7, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00113-KDB-DSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
747 Stafford Avenue
Bristol, CT 06010
Telephone: (860) 583-5200
Facsimile: (860) 589-5790
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Rod. M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James T. Shearin, Esq.
PULLMAN & COMLEY
850 Main St., Po Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
Telephone: (203) 330-2000
LOWES COMPANIES: Bogaert Suit Moved From D. Colorado to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE CHEREE BOGAERT and
ZACHARY EVANS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00695 (Filed March 13, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina (Statesville) on Aug. 7, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00114-KDB-DSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Colorado Minimum Wages Of Workers Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebaileyn@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jessica Brown, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4200
Denver, CO 80202-2642
Telephone: (303) 298-5700
Facsimile: (303) 313-2831
LOWES COMPANIES: Boyce Suit Moved from S.D.W. Va. to W.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MANDY BOYCE and THOMAS FYFE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00228 (Filed July 8, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina (Statesville) on Aug. 7, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00115 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law and the West
Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebaileyn@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kristina Thomas Whiteaker, Esq.
THE GRUBB LAW GROUP, PLLC
1114 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Charleston, WV 25301
Telepone: (304) 345-3356
Facsimile: (304) 345-3355
E-mail: kwiteaker@grubblawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Clare F. Steinberg, Esq.
David A. Schnitzer, Esq.
Jason Craig Schwartz, Esq.
Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
Molly Trustman Senger, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8623
E-mail: dschnitzer@gibsondunn.com
jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
knelson@gibsondunn.com
msenger@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Grace E. Hurney, Esq.
Jill E. Hall, Esq.
JACKSON KELLY
P. O. Box 553
Charleston, WV 25322-0553
Telephone: (304) 340-1000
Facsimile: (304) 340-1080
LOWES COMPANIES: Cleavenger Suit Moved to W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY CLEAVENGER and RONNIE
ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 4:20-cv-05049 (Filed March 13, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00108 to the proceeding.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the Washington Wage Rebate
Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam Berger, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-1614
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David A. Schnitzer, Esq.
Jason Craig Schwartz, Esq.
Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
Matthew S Gregory, Esq.
Molly Trustman Senger, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 887-3775
Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
E-mail: dschnitzer@gibsondunn.com
jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
knelson@gibsondunn.com
msenger@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Stephen Michael Rummage, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
LOWES COMPANIES: Estes Suit Moved From E.D. Arkansas to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KINDSAY ESTES and BRIAN
ROOKEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00289 (Filed March 18, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00105 to the proceeding.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Holleman, Esq.
HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1008 West 2nd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 975-5040
- and -
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: rjohnston@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael S. Moore, Esq.
Katherine Church Campbell, Esq.
FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
3350 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301
Rogers, AR 72758
Telephone: (479) 695-6040
LOWES COMPANIES: Gerber Labor Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GERBER and STEPHANIE
SUAZO, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02773 (Filed March 3, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 11, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00122 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations, and New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) JTB-LAWS
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Ste. 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
William T. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 757-1100
LOWES COMPANIES: Grove Suit Moved From D. Arizona to W.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Slade Grove and Eugene
Garcia, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00586 (Filed March 13, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00110 to the proceeding.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Arizona Wage Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
leonard@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony Tom King, Esq.
Donald Wayne Bivens, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
400 E Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 382-6513
Facsimile: (602) 382-6070
LOWES COMPANIES: Hyde Labor Suit Moved From Maryland to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JASON HYDE and ANTOINE
HURSEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00678 (Filed March 13, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 10, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00120-KDB-DSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Rod. M. Johnston, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason Craig Schwartz, Esq.
Molly Trustman Senger, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8242
Facsimile: (202) 530-9522
E-mail: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
msenger@gibsondunn.com
LOWES COMPANIES: Martinez Suit Moved From New Mexico to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ and
PETER LOMAX, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00234 (Filed March 13, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina (Statesville) on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00107 to the proceeding.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher M. Moody, Esq.
Repps D. Stanford, Esq.
MOODY & STANFORD, P.C.
4169 Montgomery Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Telephone: (505) 944-0033
E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com
stanford@nmlaborlaw.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Cassandra R. Malone, Esq.
William Spencer Reid, Esq.
KELEHER & MCLEOD, P.A.
201 Third St. NW, Suite 1200
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 346-1307
Facsimile: (505) 346-1370
- and -
David A. Schnitzer, Esq.
Jason Craig Schwartz, Esq.
Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
Molly Trustman Senger, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 887-3775
Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
E-mail: dschnitzer@gibsondunn.com
jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
knelson@gibsondunn.com
msenger@gibsondunn.com
LOWES COMPANIES: Neal FLSA Suit Moved From Minnesota to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NEAL, Individually and
on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. LOWE'S
COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No.
0:20-cv-01003 (Filed April 23, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Statesville) on
Aug. 10, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00119-KDB-DSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment
of Wages Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Rusch, Esq.
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1804
Facsimile: (612) 436-4801
E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeanette M. Bazis, Esq.
Jenny Gassman-Pines, Esq.
GREENE ESPEL PLLP
222 S 9th St., Ste. 2200
Mpls, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 373-0830
Facsimile: (612) 373-0929
LOWES COMPANIES: Nelson Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to W.D.N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN NELSON and JEREMY
WEST, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00190 (Filed March 13, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00106 to the proceeding.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
4600 Madison, Ste. 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: 816-221-7100
E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kathleen M. Nemechek, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
- and -
David A. Schnitzer, Esq.
Jason Craig Schwartz, Esq.
Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
Molly Trustman Senger, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 887-3775
Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
E-mail: dschnitzer@gibsondunn.com
jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
knelson@gibsondunn.com
msenger@gibsondunn.com
LOWES COMPANIES: Roy Labor Suit Moved From D. Mass. to W.D.N.C
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD ROY and JEFFREY
LAVELLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 4:20-cv-40029 (Filed March 13, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 10, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00121-KDB-DSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act, the Massachusetts Wage
Act, the Massachusetts Overtime Act, and the Timely Payment of
Wages Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin K. Steffans, Esq.
STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC
7 North Street, No. 307
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Telephone: (413) 441-6366
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Ste. 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5303
Telephone: (202) 955-8217
LOWES COMPANIES: Rumpke Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to W.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN RUMPKE, NICHOLLE FRANK,
and SEAN WOLFE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01411 (Filed March 18, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina (Statesville) on Aug. 10, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00118 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose II, Esq.
Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Ste. 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew Roberts, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 462-2694
LOWES COMPANIES: Tirado Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to W.D.N.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as IRIS TIRADO, Individually and
on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. LOWE'S
COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-01472 (Filed March 19, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:20-cv-00190 to the proceeding.
This class action arose from the Defendants' willful violations of
the New York Minimum Wage Act and the New York's Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
The Defendants require their Hourly Managers to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendants do not compensate
their Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, the Defendants
require their Hourly Managers to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods, when they are not clocked into the Defendants'
timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. The Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and
their related businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 245,000 people in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
fran@klafterolsen.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kathleen M. Nemechek, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
- and -
Gabriell Frances Levin, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 887-3775
Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Strougo Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA STROUGO, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MALLINCKRODT
PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, MARK C. TRUDEAU, BRYAN M. REASONS, GEORGE
A. KEGLER, and MATTHEW K. HARBAUGH, Case No. 1:19-cv-07030 (Filed
July 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Trenton) on Aug. 6, 2020.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-10100-AET-TJB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Anne E. Thompson.
The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt securities between
February 28, 2018, and July 16, 2019, both dates inclusive. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
Mallinckrodt was founded in 1867 and is based in the United
Kingdom. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally.[BN]
Movants Dennis Dauenhauer, Brad Davis, Timothy J. Wilcox, and
Delbert Smith; and Lead Plaintiff Canadian Elevator Industry
Pension Trust Fund are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David A. Kotler, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
100 Overlook Center, 2nd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540-6531
Telephone: (609) 955-3200
Facsimile: (609) 955-3259
E-mail: david.kotler@dechert.com
MASTEC NORTH: Ureno Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY URENO, JOHN GARDEA,
JEFFREY CHANDLER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, MASTEC NETWORK SOLUTIONS, MASTEC
POWER CORPORATION, MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY (MASTEC), AND DOES ONE
through FIFTY, inclusive, Case No. RG20066038 (Filed June 24,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Aug. 7, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05503 to the proceeding.
This action involves claims against the Defendants for the alleged
failure to pay for all hours worked, including minimum
wage and overtime; failure to provide paid meal periods or premium
compensations in lieu thereof; failure to provide paid rest periods
or premium compensations in lieu thereof; waiting time penalties;
failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to provide
legally compliant itemized wage statements; unfair competition in
violation of the California Lab. Code; and a claim for penalties
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act.
MasTec North offers construction services. The Company provides
underground utility construction services including installation of
cables. MasTec North America builds water and sewer systems for
municipal governments in the United States.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christina T. Tellado, Esq.
Deisy Castro, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 896 2400
Facsimile: 213 896 2450
E-mail: christina.tellado@hklaw.com
deisy.castro@hklaw.com
MAYNE PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that a class action is moving
forward against generic drug maker Mayne Pharma. The suit alleges
that Mayne, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, have
engaged in a conspiracy to reduce competition, restrain the trade
of generic drugs, and inflate the price of products. The claims are
particularly egregious because price gouging generic drugs leaves
the public with no affordable alternative. [GN]
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ARDEN AHNEFELDT; ROBERT BROWER, JR.; ROBERT BROWER, SR.; KHANH
L. BUI; JIGNESH CHANDARANA; KRUITIKA CHANDARANA; AMIRA YOUSUF
CHOWDHURY; CHRISTOPHER COLIGADO; DANIEL GAD; EDWIN HOWELL; SIOE LIE
HOWELL; DARREN HUNTING; ANNE INGLEDEW; SHITAL MEHTA; THOMAS CARL
RABIN; ADAM SHULTZ; AMIT SOMANI; JAYAPRAKASH SRINIVASAN; AARTHI
SRINIVASAN; CHRISTOPHER SWEDLOW; and ALEXANDRE TAZI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID
DICKSON; STUART A. SPENCE; and CHRISTOPHER A. KRUMMEL, Defendants,
Case No. 4:20-cv-02539 (S.D. Tex., July 17, 2020) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities that,
between September 20, 2019 and January 23, 2020, purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of McDermott
International, Inc. (NYSE: MDR), or call options of or guaranteed
by McDermott, and seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that after assuring
investors that the Company's financial and operating condition was
improving and that it had a long-term balance sheet solution to
right the ship, on January 21, 2020, the Defendants authorized the
filing of a Chapter 11 petition on behalf of McDermott following
the approval and entry of a restructuring support agreement which
was not presented to shareholders. The Defendants then caused
McDermott to publicly disclose for the first time that the Company
had liquidity problems that could not be cured outside of the
bankruptcy process.
McDermott additionally announced that it expected the Company's
common stock to be delisted by the New York Stock Exchange
("NYSE"). On this news, trading of McDermott common stock was
halted pre-market, and trading did not resume until January 23,
2020. On January 23, McDermott common stock closed at $0.12 per
share, almost an 83% decline from its January 17 closing price.
McDermott International, Inc. is a worldwide energy services
company. The Company and its subsidiaries provides engineering,
fabrication, installation, procurement, research, manufacturing,
environmental systems, project management, and facility management
services to a variety of customers in the energy and power
industries, including the U.S. Department of Energy. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: brown@whafh.com
- and -
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: burt@whafh.com
- and -
Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
E-mail: livesay@whafh.com
- and -
Jean C. Frizzell, Esq.
Michael K. Oldham, Esq.
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
1100 Louisiana, Suite 3500
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 485-7200
Facsimile: (713) 485-7250
E-mail: jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com
oldham@reynoldsfrizzell.com
MCGRAW HILL: Belen Suit Moved From D. New Jersey to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KAITLYN BELEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCGRAW HILL, LLC
(f/k/a MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC); PEARSON
EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; and EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS
ENFORCEMENT GROUP, Case No. 3:20-cv-05394 (Filed April 30, 2020),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square) on Aug. 12, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06334-DLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Denise L. Cote.
According to the complaint, facing declining profits for higher
education textbooks and other course materials (Course Materials),
the Defendants conspired to, and did in fact, restrain trade in
that market through agreements among themselves and a variety of
"Inclusive Access" agreements with institutions of higher
education.
These agreements effectively required the Plaintiff and Class
Members to purchase, each semester or other time limited period,
new, digital copies of assigned Course Materials from the Publisher
Defendants or their co-conspirators (or both). The Publisher
Defendants were joined in the conspiracy by the operators of
certain official (i.e., institutionally-licensed) on-campus
bookstores, including Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC and
Follett Higher Education Group, Inc., where the Plaintiff and Class
Members could also purchase Course Materials for classes using
Inclusive Access.
The Defendants' unlawful conspiracy injured the Plaintiff and Class
Members by foreclosing competition and by raising the costs for
Course Materials, without providing any legitimate pro-competitive
benefit or justification, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act and
the Clayton Antitrust Act.
McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC, now known as MCGRAW
HILL, LLC, operates as a holding company. The Company, through its
subsidiary, provides books, subscription, and training materials,
as well as preschools, child care, tuition program management,
advisory, and other educational services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: 973-623-3000
Facsimile: 973-623-0858
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
scruzhodge@litedepalma.com
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
mreuben@litedepalma.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND AND PERRETTI
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 451-8756
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
MCGRAW HILL: Campus Suit Moved From Delaware to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CAMPUS BOOK COMPANY, INC.;
BJJ CORPORATION; CBSKY, INC.; CBSNM, INC.; and RENTTEXT.COM, INC.
each individually and as representatives of all others similarly
situated v. MCGRAW HILL, LLC (f/k/a MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION
HOLDINGS, LLC); PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.;
and EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS ENFORCEMENT GROUP, Case No.
1:20-cv-00102 (Filed Jan. 22, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Aug.
12, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06339-DLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Denise L. Cote.
According to the complaint, facing declining profits for higher
education textbooks and other course materials (Course Materials),
the Defendants conspired to, and did in fact, restrain trade in
that market through agreements among themselves and a variety of
"Inclusive Access" agreements with institutions of higher
education.
These agreements effectively required the Plaintiff and Class
Members to purchase, each semester or other time limited period,
new, digital copies of assigned Course Materials from the Publisher
Defendants or their co-conspirators (or both). The Publisher
Defendants were joined in the conspiracy by the operators of
certain official (i.e., institutionally-licensed) on-campus
bookstores, including Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC and
Follett Higher Education Group, Inc., where the Plaintiff and Class
Members could also purchase Course Materials for classes using
Inclusive Access.
The Defendants' unlawful conspiracy injured the Plaintiff and Class
Members by foreclosing competition and by raising the costs for
Course Materials, without providing any legitimate pro-competitive
benefit or justification.
The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act and
the Clayton Antitrust Act.
McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC, now known as MCGRAW
HILL, LLC, operates as a holding company. The Company, through its
subsidiary, provides books, subscription, and training materials,
as well as preschools, child care, tuition program management,
advisory, and other educational services.[BN]
The Plaintiff Retailers are represented by:
John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq.
David A. Bilson, Esq.
PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN,
MCLAUGHLIN & HALL P.A.
1200 North Broom Street
Wilmington, DE 19806
Telephone: 302/655-4200
Facsimile: 302/655-4210
E-mail: jcp@pgmhlaw.com
dab@pgmhlaw.com
- and -
Nicole Williams, Esq.
Mackenzie S. Wallace, Esq.
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: 214/969-1700
Facsimile: 214/969-1751
E-mail: Nicole.Williams@tklaw.com
Mackenzie.Wallace@tklaw.com
- and -
Stuart Cochran, Esq.
L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: 972/387.4040
Facsimile: 972/387.4041
E-mail: stuart@sgc.law
krogers@sgc.law
Defendants McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings LLC; Cengage
Learning Inc.; and Pearson Education Inc. are represented by:
is represented by:
Zi-Xiang Shen, Esq.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 351-9149
E-mail: zshen@mnat.com
- and -
Amy N. Vegari, Esq.
Saul B. Shapiro, Esq.
William F. Cavanaugh, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
E-mail: avegari@pbwt.com
sbshapiro@pbwt.com
wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com
- and -
Jennifer Quinn-Barabanov, Esq.
Michael Dockterman, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-1704
E-mail: Jquinnbarabanov@steptoe.com
mdockterman@steptoe.com
- and -
Andrew J. Ewalt, Esq.
Eric Mahr, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER
700 13th Street, NW, 10th floor
Washington, DC 20005-3960
Telephone: 1 202 777 4591
Facsimile: 1 202 777 4555
E-mail: andrew.ewalt@freshfields.com
eric.mahr@freshfields.com
Defendants Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. and Barnes & Noble
College Booksellers L.L.C. are represented by:
Karen Elizabeth Keller, Esq.
David M. Fry, Esq.
SHAW KELLER LLP
1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 298-0700
E-mail: kkeller@shawkeller.com
dfry@shawkeller.com
- and -
Adam J. Di Vincenzo, Esq.
Lee R. Crain, Esq.
Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN'S
Telephone: 202 887 3704
Facsimile: 202 530 9615
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
E-mail: adivincenzo@gibsondunn.com
lcrain@gibsondunn.com
rbrass@gibsondunn.com
Defendant Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. is represented by:
David Evan Ross, Esq.
ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
100 S. West Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 576-1600
Facsimile: (302) 576-1100
E-mail: dross@ramllp.com
- and -
Craig C. Martin, Esq.
Matt D. Basil, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654-3406
Telephone: 312 728 9050
Facsimile: 312 728 9199
E-mail: cmartin@willkie.com
mbasil@willkie.com
MDL 2738: 2 Johnson & Johnson Talcum Suits Moved to New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring two
actions against Johnson & Johnson, et al. to the District of New
Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the
Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
The two actions are:
* WILLEMS, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No.
8:20-00621 (Central District of California); and
* GREGORY, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:20–01443 (Northern District of Georgia)
Plaintiffs in the two actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred these actions to
the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
oppose the motions in both actions. Defendants PTI Royston, LLC,
and Cyprus Amax Minerals Company oppose the motion to vacate in the
Northern District of Georgia Gregory action.
In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs argue that
federal subject matter jurisdiction over their respective actions
is lacking, and that plaintiffs' pending or anticipated motions for
remand to state court should be decided before transfer. The Panel
has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present
an impediment to transfer. Judge Caldwell is not persuaded that
plaintiffs' jurisdictional objections should be treated differently
because remand purportedly is compelled under controlling case law.
The Panel regularly orders transfer of actions over similar
objections, consistent with the well-established principle that the
Panel lacks the authority under Section 1407 to decide questions
going to the jurisdiction or merits of a case.
Plaintiffs in Gregory further argue that Johnson &Johnson has
engaged in a pattern of frivolous removals, inconsistent with the
transferee court's prior remand orders in this docket. This
argument likewise does not support vacating the conditional
transfer order. Not only would it require that the Panel judges
the merit of defendants' removals, but the court best placed to
recognize and address any pattern of frivolous removals is the
transferee court.
Finally, plaintiffs in both actions argue that they will be
prejudiced by transfer. This argument is unconvincing. Transfer
of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties
to the action might experience inconvenience or delay.
Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge
Caldwell finds that the actions involve common questions of fact
with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation,
the Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed
ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson &
Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and
Shower to Shower body powder). The actions share multiple
questions of fact with the actions already in the MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/vf0BML
MDL 2741: Mowry v. Monsanto Co. Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
2741, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, MOWRY v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No.
2:20-00215, from the Middle District of Alabama to the Northern
District of California and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable Vince Chhabria for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Mowry action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Mowry to the
Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2741.
Defendant Monsanto Company opposes the motion.
In support of his motion, plaintiff argues that federal subject
matter jurisdiction over his action is lacking, and that his motion
for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. Such
jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to
transfer. Plaintiff can present his remand arguments to the
transferee judge.
Plaintiff also argues that transfer is not appropriate because the
MDL has reached an advanced stage. This characterization remains
inaccurate. While much of the general discovery of Monsanto has
been completed, the transferee court is now organizing the actions
for completion of case-specific discovery and disposition of
case-specific dispositive and Daubert motions on a state-by-state
basis before remanding those actions to their transferor courts.
The transferee court has not suggested remand of any action to its
transferor court, nor has it yet organized the actions originating
from Alabama transferor courts into a remand wave for resolution of
common pretrial motions. Thus, significant efficiency and
convenience benefits may be achieved through the continued transfer
of tag-along actions to MDL No. 2741.
Plaintiff additionally argues that transfer to N.D. California
will cause him and his fact witnesses inconvenience. This argument
is unconvincing. Transfer of an action is appropriate if it
furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a
whole, even if some parties to the action might experience
inconvenience or delay. Moreover, "since Section 1407 transfer is
for pretrial proceedings only, there is usually no need for the
parties and witnesses to travel to the transferee district for
depositions or otherwise."
Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell
finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2741, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the Northern District of California was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Mowry shares multiple factual issues with
the cases already in the MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/HYXRwM
MDL 2804: 8 Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring eight
actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in eight actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL
No. 2804. Various defendants oppose the motions.
After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
forth in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that
order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities, and towns across the country.
Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, all
share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs. These
actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit.
Plaintiffs oppose transfer by principally arguing that federal
jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But opposition to
transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is insufficient to
warrant vacating conditional transfer of factually related cases.
Most opponents of transfer also argue that including their actions
in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience and delay the
progress of their actions, including the resolution of their remand
motion. Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL
proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the
efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Transfer Order,
including the list of eight cases to be transferred, is available
at https://is.gd/hBCTCW
MDL 2804: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Bass v. Purdue Pharma
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied Plaintiff Ronald Bass, Sr.'s
motion to transfer the action styled, BASS v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-19709 from the District of New Jersey to the
Northern District of Ohio for inclusion in MDL No. 2804.
Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Bass, Sr., moves under Section 1407 (c) to
transfer the action to the Northern District of Ohio for inclusion
in MDL No. 2804. No party opposed the motion.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell finds that
transfer of this action is not appropriate. "In our order
centralizing this litigation, we held that the Northern District of
Ohio was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing
factual questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities, and towns across the country."
The Bass plaintiff argues that his use of certain manufacturing
defendants' medications caused him to become addicted to opiates,
depriving him of employment opportunities as a longshoreman and at
a Honda dealership. He contends that he was wrongfully accused by
a state court judge of antisocial behavior and drug-related
conduct, which led to the loss of his apartment and revocation of
his parental rights to his son. Plaintiff also contends he lost
opportunities to pursue a "patent pending for diabetic footwear."
Despite any factual overlap that Bass shares with the MDL actions,
Judge Caldwell finds that adding Bass to the MDL at this time will
not serve the just and efficient conduct of Bass or the MDL as a
whole.
The parties can employ alternatives to transfer to minimize
whatever, if any, possibilities may arise of duplicative discovery
and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings, the Court adds.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/WGIiO2
MDL 2814: 4 Suits vs. Ford Motor Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2814, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring four actions to the Central District
of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to
the Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., for inclusion in the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the four actions under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's orders conditionally transferring the actions to MDL No.
2814. Defendant Ford Motor Company opposes the motions to vacate
and supports transfer.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell finds that
the actions share questions of fact with the actions transferred to
MDL No. 2814, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions in MDL
No. 2814 involve common factual questions arising out of
allegations that the DPS6 PowerShift transmission installed in
certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles is defective and
negatively affects the drivability, safety, and useful life of the
vehicles. The Judge finds that plaintiffs' actions involve the
same factual issues. The Sutton and Guardado actions allege
"transmission defects" in 2017 Ford Focus vehicles. The Hall and
Rodriguez actions allege "drivability" problems in 2014 Ford Focus
and Ford Fiesta vehicles and, according to Ford's vehicle records,
were presented for repairs to the transmission. The vehicles in
all actions are equipped with a DPS6 PowerShift transmission,
according to Ford's vehicle records.
In supports of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs in all four
actions argue that their actions were improperly removed and the
transferor courts should decide their motions for remand to state
court. Jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to
transfer, as plaintiffs can present these arguments to the
transferee judge.
Plaintiffs' argument that defendant Ford has engaged in a pattern
of baseless removals, inconsistent with the transferee court's
prior remand rulings in this docket, likewise does not support
vacating the conditional transfer orders. Not only would
plaintiffs' argument require that the Panel judges the merit of
defendant's removals, but the court best placed to recognize and
address any pattern of frivolous removals is the transferee court.
Plaintiffs in Sutton and Guardado further argue that that their
actions are beyond the boundaries of the MDL because the Ford Focus
vehicles in the MDL are model years 2012 to 2016, while their Ford
Focus vehicles are model year 2017. While the initial transfer
order does refer to "Ford Focus model years 2012 to 2016" in a
footnote, the common factual questions described by the order are
those "arising out of allegations that the DPS6 PowerShift
transmission installed in certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus
vehicles is defective." The order proceeds to specifically describe
the common factual questions as: "(1) whether the design or
manufacturing of the PowerShift transmission is defective; (2)
defendant's knowledge of, and conduct in response, to the alleged
defect; and (3) whether vehicle owners and lessees have suffered a
diminution in value or other economic damages." Plaintiffs' claims
will involve the same factual questions, even though they have 2017
model year vehicles.
Additionally, consistent with the initial transfer order, the MDL
already includes other model year vehicles with the DPS6 PowerShift
transmission, including the 2017 Ford Focus. As Ford correctly
notes, actions involving such vehicles have been included through
the transfer of other potential tag-along actions, and the
transferee judge has accepted the direct filing of actions
involving other model years, such as the 2017 Ford Focus, for
inclusion in the MDL.
The Sutton and Guardado plaintiffs also argue that their actions
should not be included because, though their complaints allege a
"[d]efective transmission," they do not know whether their vehicles
have the DPS6 PowerShift transmission. But Ford has submitted
vehicle records documenting that plaintiffs' vehicles are equipped
with a DPS6 PowerShift transmission. Should there be a factual
dispute over the accuracy of Ford's representation, the transferee
court is well-situated to resolve it, and can suggest remand of
Sutton and Guardado if warranted.
The Sutton and Guardado plaintiffs next argue that their actions
should be excluded because they allege non-transmission defects
such as engine, battery, and emission defects. However, "the
presence of additional facts or differing legal theories" does not
prevent the transfer of an action that shares factual issues with
those in the MDL. Moreover, in this MDL, the Panel already has
determined that actions alleging both DPS6 PowerShift transmission
defects and "additional problems unrelated to the transmission" are
appropriate for transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/d5nfQ7
MDL 2909: Honeycutt v. Fair Oaks Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FAIRLIFE MILK PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2909, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the action styled, HONEYCUTT v. FAIR OAKS FARMS
FOOD, LLC, C.A. No. 2:20-00099, from the Northern District of
Indiana to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent
of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Honeycutt action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Honeycutt
to the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion in MDL No. 2909.
Defendant Fair Oaks Farms Food opposes the motion, as does the
plaintiff in the Salzhauer action in the MDL, who is represented by
interim co-lead class counsel for the consolidated litigation.
In support of her motion, plaintiff argues that her claims are not
related to those being litigated in the MDL. Plaintiff is correct
that her allegations differ from those asserted by plaintiffs in
the MDL -- she seeks to represent a putative class of purchasers of
Fair Oaks' milk products, as opposed to purchasers of fairlife,
LLC's milk products. These differences, though, are outweighed by
the similarities between Honeycutt and the actions in the MDL.
Both involve consumer claims relating to representations by
defendants about the quality of care given to their dairy cows, and
both allege that consumers paid a premium for defendants' milk
products as a result.
Critically, both fairlife and Fair Oaks obtained their milk from
the same farm in northern Indiana, and the allegations of animal
abuse in the complaints are identical. The representations at the
heart of these actions thus pertain to the same product (albeit
sold under different brands) and allegedly were called into
question by the same conduct at the same farm. Accordingly, the
actions likely will involve significant overlapping discovery.
This conclusion is reinforced by the overlapping ownership of the
various corporate Defendants -- both fairlife and Fair Oaks were
owned, in whole or in part, by Select Milk Producers, Inc., when
the alleged animal abuse occurred. Honeycutt will be most
efficiently litigated as part of MDL No. 2909.
Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell
finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2909, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the Northern District of Illinois was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising from allegations of animal cruelty at a farm in
northern Indiana that provides milk used in fairlife's milk
products.
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased milk products based on
defendants' marketing and labeling, which emphasized the humane
treatment given to their dairy cows. Like those actions, plaintiff
in Honeycutt alleges that she purchased milk products based upon
marketing and labeling that emphasized the humane treatment of the
dairy cows at the same farm in northern Indiana, albeit marketing
and labeling by Fair Oaks rather than fairlife.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/9ASCxS
MDL 2944: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 7 JPMorgan PPP Loan Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JPMORGAN CHASE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2944, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the motion
for centralization of seven actions alleging JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., and JPMorgan Chase & Co. failed to properly process
applications for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program
("PPP"), a federal loan program established under the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") to help small
businesses suffering economic damage from COVID-19 related
shutdowns
Plaintiff in one action (Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa) filed a motion
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize nine actions in the
Southern District of California. Separately, plaintiffs in two
other actions (Cyber Defense Group and Kull) filed a motion for
centralization of the same nine actions, as well as a tenth one, in
the Central District of California. Plaintiffs in Cyber Defense
Group and Kull recently dismissed their actions, and presumably are
no longer pursuing their motion. However, whether to centralize
this litigation remains a live issue among the parties to seven
remaining actions. Additionally, the Panel has been notified of
four related actions.
Responding plaintiffs in two actions on the motion (Legendary
Transport and Sha-Poppin Gourmet Popcorn) and one related action
(KPA Promotions) support centralization. They variously propose
the Central District of California, Southern District of
California, and Northern District of Illinois as the transferee
district. Plaintiff in one action (Outlet Tile) opposes
centralization.
Defendant Chase opposes centralization and, alternatively, proposes
the District of Colorado or Northern District of Texas as the
transferee district. Defendant Phunware, Inc., which is sued in
one action (Sha-Poppin Gourmet Popcorn), opposes centralization
and, alternatively, seeks separation and remand of the claims
against Phunware and other loan recipient defendants to its
originating court, the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants
RCHS Operations, Inc., and RCSH Operations, LLC (together, "RCSH")
assert that RCSH should not be part of the Sha-Poppin action
regardless of where it proceeds, but concurs in Phunware's request
for separation and remand; alternatively, RCSH suggests
centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Caldwell will deny plaintiff's motion. Although these
actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that
Chase failed to implement and follow federal regulations requiring
that PPP loan applications be processed on a "first-come,
first-served" basis, Judge Caldwell concludes that centralization
will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or
further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. On the
present record, it appears that individualized factual issues
concerning the circumstances of each loan application will
significantly diminish the potential efficiencies from
centralization. Additionally, the number of involved actions is
limited and appears unlikely to grow. In fact, two actions have
been voluntarily dismissed since the filing of the first motion for
centralization, and in a third action (Outlet Tile), the underlying
docket indicates that settlement discussions are underway. There
are only four potential tag-along actions.
In the present circumstances, voluntary coordination among the
parties and the involved judges is preferable to centralization.
The Judge encourages the parties to employ various alternatives to
transfer which may minimize the potential for duplicative discovery
and in consistent pretrial rulings. Such coordination appears
practicable in this litigation, considering the limited number of
actions and districts. Additionally, common defendant Chase is
represented by the same counsel in all actions, and represents in
the Panel briefing it will support informal coordination of any
overlapping discovery and other pretrial activities.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/UPbmiG
MDL 2947: 19 FLSA Suits v. Lowe's Companies Moved to W.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION, MDL No. 2947, Judge Karen
K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
has entered an order transferring 19 actions pending in 19
districts to the Western District of North Carolina and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Kenneth D.
Bell, Sr., for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Common defendants Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers,
LLC (together, Lowe's), move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Western District of North
Carolina.
Plaintiffs in all actions oppose centralization. In the event that
the actions are centralized over their objection, they agree that
the Western District of North Carolina is the appropriate
district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Caldwell finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Western District of North
Carolina will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All
actions share factual questions arising from nearly identical
allegations that Lowe's fails to compensate Hourly Managers at its
retail stores for work performed off-the-clock principally, time
spent opening and closing the stores when they cannot be logged on
to Lowe's timekeeping system and time spent reading and responding
to work-related smartphone communications while off duty.
Additionally, the actions involve putative statewide classes that
overlap with the conditionally certified nationwide FLSA collective
in Danford. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (on FLSA certification, class
certification, and other matters); and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
In opposing centralization, plaintiffs principally argue that (1)
informal coordination is a practicable and preferable alternative
to centralization, noting that plaintiffs in all actions are
represented by the same counsel, and defendant Lowe's also has a
single counsel acting as lead counsel in all actions; (2) Danford
is more advanced than the other actions; and (3) localized issues
are likely to arise in the 18 state law actions as Lowe's is
expected to oppose class certification based on localized
differences between stores. In response, defendants argue that the
large number of districts makes informal coordination difficult and
inefficient, and will not avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings.
Defendants further assert that the inadequacy of informal
coordination is clear from plaintiff's representation in related
state court actions that formal coordination in a single forum is
needed to efficiently manage discovery and avoid inconsistent
rulings. They also argue that site-specific issues should not
preclude centralization, considering plaintiff's allegation of
"common and systemic payroll policies and practices" as to the
conduct at issue. And they represent that Danford remains at an
early stage of discovery -- in particular, no depositions of Lowe's
have been taken and there have been no significant document
productions on the common issues.
Judge Caldwell finds centralization is preferable to informal
coordination in this litigation. While the Judge strongly
encourages informal coordination, the record before the Panel
indicates that it is impracticable in this litigation. There are
19 actions pending in 19 different districts and related litigation
in state courts. Additionally, the Judge believes that the
overlapping issues presented by the nationwide FLSA action and the
putative Rule 23 classes are best managed in a single venue,
considering in particular that plaintiffs in nearly all of the
state-specific actions are opt-in plaintiffs in the Danford action.
All actions remain at a relatively early stage of pretrial
proceedings, including Danford, and will benefit from common
discovery as to the company-wide conduct alleged by plaintiffs.
Judge Caldwell concludes that the Western District of North
Carolina is an appropriate transferee forum. Lowe's, the sole
defendant in all actions, has its headquarters there, and thus
relevant documents and witnesses likely will be located in this
district. Plaintiffs agree that this district is appropriate if
the actions are centralized. The Honorable Kenneth D. Bell, Sr.,
who presides over the Danford action, is familiar with the issues
in this litigation. Judge Caldwell is confident he will steer this
matter on a prudent course.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/CmgKVA
MDL 2950: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 12 PPP Agent Fee Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PAYCHECKPROTECTION PROGRAM (PPP) AGENT FEES
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2950, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
Plaintiff's motion for centralization of 12 actions pending in 10
districts into the District of Arizona.
Plaintiff in one action in the Northern District of Georgia moves
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the
District of Arizona. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has
been notified of 50 related actions pending in an additional 16
districts. The actions allege that lenders across the banking
industry failed to pay legally mandated "agent fees" owed to agents
who assisted small businesses in applying for loans that were
approved under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a federal
loan program established under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") to help small businesses
suffering economic damage from COVID-19 related shutdowns.
The defendants in the actions on the motion and related actions are
over a hundred lenders authorized to make PPP loans, including
numerous community and regional banks and nationwide banks such as
Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. All responding defendants
except Chase and Wells Fargo oppose centralization. Most of the
opposing defendants request that, if centralization is ordered over
their objections, any MDL should be lender-specific and established
only for the largest or most frequently sued lenders. Chase
opposes industry-wide centralization, but supports a Chase-specific
MDL in which claims against other lenders in multi-defendant
actions are separated and remanded to their original forums. Wells
Fargo supports industry-wide centralization and is opposed to
lender-specific MDLs. Nearly all defendants propose that, in the
event of industry-wide centralization, the Northern District of
Georgia should be the transferee district and, in the event of
lender-specific MDLs, they variously propose the Southern District
of Florida, Northern District of Georgia, District of Maryland,
Southern District of Ohio, and Western District of Pennsylvania.
On the plaintiffs' side, all responding plaintiffs but one
(Smukler) support centralization of all actions in a single
industry-wide MDL, with disagreement limited to the transferee
district. Most also oppose lender-specific MDLs, which they assert
would defeat the anticipated efficiencies from centralization. But
one counsel representing plaintiffs in 21 related actions requests
that, if an industry-wide MDL is rejected, lender-specific MDLs
should be established for the 15 largest PPP lenders and national
banks sued in three or more actions. Plaintiff opposing
industry-wide centralization (Smukler) supports a lender-specific
MDL for claims against Chase. The transferee districts proposed by
the various plaintiffs are the District of Arizona, Northern
District of California, Southern District of Florida, Northern
District of Illinois, Southern District of New York, Southern
District of Ohio, District of South Carolina, and Western District
of Washington.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Caldwell concludes that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions undoubtedly
allege similar policies and practices by the defendant banks --
specifically, that defendants failed to pay fees to agents who
assisted small businesses in applying for and obtaining PPP loans,
contrary to the provisions of the CARES Act and federal
regulations. But the actions involve dozens of different lenders,
and there isno common or predominant defendant across all actions.
Common factual questions are lacking, as the policies and practices
for paying agent fees are unique to each lender which differ
significantly across the actions. Moreover, the vast majority of
defendants are named in only one action, further indicating a lack
of common questions of fact.
The proponents of centralization argue that an industry-wide MDL
still is warranted by the central common legal issue in these
actions -- whether agents have a legal entitlement to agent fees
under the CARES Act or implementing regulations. But "[c]ommon
legal questions are insufficient to satisfy Section 1407's
requirement of common factual questions."
The Panel also has determined that lender-specific MDLs are not
warranted. Although some common factual questions likely exist on
a lender-specific basis, the creation of lender-specific MDLs would
create significant inefficiencies. Many actions are multi-lender
actions, and the creation of the proposed numerous lender-specific
MDLs would require extensive separation and remand of claims to
ensure that (1) the claims against the various lenders are
transferred to the correct MDL, and(2)the claims against unrelated
lenders are simultaneously separated and remanded to their
transferor courts. This would have the effect of significantly
multiplying the number of judges presiding over the claims in a
single action. This degree of separation and remand likely would
diminish, rather than enhance, efficiencies.
Alternatives to centralization are available to minimize
duplicative pretrial proceedings. Where multiple actions are
pending in a single district, the parties can seek to organize the
actions before a single judge, as already has occurred in the
Southern District of New York, the District of South Carolina, and
the Southern District of Florida. Informal coordination also
appears to be practicable across districts, as just four groups of
plaintiffs' counsel represent plaintiffs in 50 of the 62 actions in
this litigation and the most frequently-named defendants appear to
be represented by national counsel. Additionally, all actions are
in their infancy, which will further facilitate coordinated
pretrial proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1Y9nR2
MDL 2952: Court Denies Bid to Transfer 3 Bank of America PPP Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2952, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to centralize three actions into the Western
District of Texas.
The three actions are:
Northern District of California
STUDIO 1220, INC. v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-03081
INFORMATECH CONSULTING, INC. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET
AL.,C.A. No. 3:20-02892
Western District of Texas
E-DEALER DIRECT, LLC, ET AL. v. BANK OFAMERICA CORP., C.A.
No. 3:20-00139
The actions before the Panel involve allegations that Bank of
America Bank, N.A., and Bank of America Corporation (together,
"Bank of America") failed to properly process applications for
loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a federal loan
program established under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act ("CARES Act") to help small businesses suffering
economic damage from COVID-19 related shutdowns. The litigation
consists of three actions pending in two districts.
Plaintiffs in one Western District of Texas action (E-Dealer
Direct) filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize
this litigation in the Western District of Texas. At oral
argument, movants stated that they now support centralization in
the Northern District of California, where the other two actions
are pending.
Plaintiffs in the two Northern District of California actions
support centralization in that district. Defendant Bank of America
opposes centralization and, alternatively, proposes the District of
Maryland or, alternatively, the Northern District of Georgia.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Caldwell will deny plaintiffs' motion. Although these
actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that
Bank of America failed to implement and follow federal regulations
requiring that PPP loan applications be processed on a "first-come,
first-served" basis, Judge Caldwell concludes that centralization
will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or
further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. On the
present record, it appears that individualized factual issues
concerning the circumstances of each loan application will
significantly diminish the potential efficiencies from
centralization. Additionally, where, as here, only a minimal
number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization
bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is
appropriate. Plaintiffs have not met that burden. There are only
three actions pending in two districts, and the cases do not appear
to be particularly complex.
In the present circumstances, voluntary coordination among the
parties and the involved judges is preferable to centralization.
Judge Caldwell encourages the parties to employ various
alternatives to transfer which may minimize the potential for
duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings. Such
coordination appears practicable in this litigation, considering
the few actions and districts involved. Additionally, common
defendant Bank of America is represented by the same counsel in all
actions, and represents in the Panel briefing that it will support
informal coordination of any overlapping discovery and other
pretrial activities.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nMecEi
MDL 2954: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Wells Fargo PPP Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: WELLS FARGO PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2954, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
Plaintiff's motion for centralization of five actions into the
Southern District of Texas.
The five actions are:
Northern District of California
MA v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-03697
MARSELIAN v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-03166
Southern District of California
KAREN'S CUSTOM GROOMING LLC v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:20-00956
District of Colorado
PHYSICAL THERAPY SPECIALISTS, P.C. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
C.A. No. 1:20-01190
Southern District of Texas
DNM CONTRACTING, INC. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., C.A. No.
4:20-01790
The actions before the Panel involve allegations that Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo & Co. failed to properly process
applications for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program
("PPP"), a federal loan program established under the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") to help small
businesses suffering economic damage from COVID-19 related
shutdowns.
Plaintiff in one Southern District of Texas action (DNM
Contracting)filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Texas.
After responses were filed, plaintiff took the position that one
action -- the Ma securities class action involving Wells Fargo's
PPP implementation -- was not appropriate for inclusion because it
raised distinct factual and legal issues. At oral argument, movant
proposed the Southern District of California as an alternative
transferee district.
Plaintiff in one action (Marselian) supports centralization of all
actions in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff in
another action (Karen's Custom Grooming) opposes centralization
and, alternatively, proposes excluding the Ma securities class
action and centralizing the applicant class actions in the Southern
District of California. Plaintiff in Ma opposes centralization of
Ma. Defendant Wells Fargo opposes centralization and,
alternatively, proposes the District of Colorado as the transferee
district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Caldwell will deny plaintiffs' motion. Although these
actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that
Wells Fargo failed to implement and follow federal regulations
requiring that PPP loan applications be processed on a "first-come,
first-served" basis, Judge Caldwell concludes that centralization
will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or
further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In the
four PPP applicant actions on the motion, it appears that
individualized factual issues concerning the circumstances of each
loan application will significantly diminish the potential
efficiencies from centralization. The Ma securities class action
involves further distinct factual and legal issues particular to
investors, as movant concedes in withdrawing its requests for
inclusion of Ma. Additionally, the number of actions is limited
and appears unlikely to grow. Two actions (Scherer and BSJA) have
been voluntarily dismissed since the filing of the motion for
centralization, and there are only three potential tag-along
actions.
In the present circumstances, voluntary coordination among the
parties and the involved judges is preferable to centralization.
The Judge encourages the parties to employ various alternatives to
transfer which may minimize the potential for duplicative discovery
and inconsistent pretrial rulings. Such coordination appears
practicable in this litigation, considering the limited number of
actions and districts involved. Additionally, common defendant
Wells Fargo is represented by the same counsel in all actions, and
represents in the Panel briefing that it will support informal
coordination of any overlapping discovery and other pretrial
activities.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6XOI55
MMR GROUP: Hernandez Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. MMR GROUP, INC., a Louisiana corporation; MMR
CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a Louisiana corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. RIC2001720 (Filed June 15, 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 Aug. 10, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01608-SVW-KK to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
unpaid minimum wages, waiting time penalties for final wages not
timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and violations of the California Business and Professions
code.
The Plaintiff seeks award of compensatory damages, including unpaid
wages, penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and declaratory
relief.
MMR offers electrical installation, notification systems, panel
fabrication, signal wiring, grounding, lighting, power
distribution, switch gear, system analysis, and equipment
installation services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael S. Chamberlin, Esq.
Vartan S. Madoyan, Esq.
Carter L. Norfleet, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: 310 820 8800
Facsimile: 310 820 8859
E-mail: mchamberlin@bakerlaw.com
vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
cnorfleet@bakerlaw.com
MONTGOMERY, MD: Faces Beahn Suit Over Reopening of Schools
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN AND KIMBERLY BEAHN, individually and as parents and next
friends of P.B., M.B., AND B.B., MINORS, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al. PLAINTIFFS, v. TRAVIS A. GAYLES,
et al. DEFENDANTS, Case No. 8:20-cv-02240 (D. Md., August 3, 2020)
is an action brought by the Plaintiffs requesting that the Court
issue temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief
enjoining Defendants from enforcing the order issued by Defendant
Travis A. Gayles on July 31, 2020 which prohibits the physical
opening of religious schools or private schools for in-person
instruction.
Mr. Gayles is the Health Officer Chief, Public Health Services of
Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services in
Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
Alyse L. Prawde, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD, AND LAAKE, P.A.
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
Facsimile: (240) 553-1761
E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
aprawde@jgllaw.com
NEO CABINET: Galigher Sues in Arkansas Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEO Cabinet, Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Cynthia Galigher, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NEO Cabinet Inc.; NEO
Holdings, LLC; and Nathan Fritze, Case No. 2:20-cv-02140-PKH (W.D.
Ark., Aug. 11, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge P. K. Holmes III.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Neo is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company
running freight hauling business from Springdale, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
NH SERVICES: Benjamin Labor Suit Seeks Regular and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAMIKA BENJAMIN v. NH SERVICES, LLC; NOBLE HOUSE HOME FURNISHINGS,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV30050 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking relief
against the Defendants for their failure to pay all wages due,
including regular and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims arising from the Defendants'
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to
pay wages due upon termination of employment; and failure to
reimburse for necessary business expenditures in violation of the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants-Employers as a truck driver
from July 2017 to 20 November 2019. He and Aggrieved Employees
consist of identifiable, current, and/or former similarly situated
persons, who worked for the Employers as truck drivers during the
relevant time period
Noble House is a California limited liability company, which
manufactures and retails home furnishings and furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Kate Nicole G. Blanco, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP
249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
kblanco@mahoney-law.net
NISSAN NORTH: Wins Bid to Dismiss Ellis Suit Over Defective Brake
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued
an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned SCOTT ELLIS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., and NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY,
LTD., Case No. 4:19-CV-00750-FJG (W.D. Mo.).
The putative class-action case arises out of Plaintiff Scott Ellis'
allegations that Defendants Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan
Motor Company's model-year 2009 Murano contained a defective
braking system. The Plaintiff purchased a 2009 Nissan Murano ("the
Vehicle") in 2011 from a dealership in Jackson County, Missouri,
for his own personal use. Although Nissan issued a voluntary recall
while under an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration ("NHTSA"), the Plaintiff is suing for a more
extensive remedy, including damages.
In May 2017, the NHTSA opened a Preliminary Investigation into
possible "soft" braking problems in Nissan Muranos. "Soft" braking
means the driver has to push the brake pedal all the way to the
floor before the car slows. Nissan claims it acknowledged a problem
in the braking system's ABS control module in June 2017, which
could result in an increased braking time. Nissan responded to the
NHTSA investigation in July 2017.
After experiencing soft-braking episodes and having his Vehicle
repaired, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 16, 2019,
bringing claims for fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") and
a declaratory judgment finding a material defect that necessitates
an effective remedy. The Complaint makes a conclusory allegation
that Nissan knew of the soft-breaking defect in 2010 but failed to
take any action to remedy the defect at that time. The Complaint
also alleges Nissan's communications regarding its voluntary safety
recall were deficient because they lacked information indicating
the seriousness of the danger, including the potential for "a
serious collision and bodily injury" due to the soft-braking issue.
The Plaintiff alleges that Nissan's voluntary efforts have been,
and continue to be, inadequate to deal with the defective
soft-breaking issue.
As for remedies, the Complaint seeks economic damages (including
the purported lost resale value of the Vehicle), punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and a declaration "that the defective nature of
the Class Vehicles is material and requires an effective remedy
that will prevent Soft Braking from recurring, thereby preventing
future harm."
In its Motion, Nissan moves to dismiss the lawsuit on a variety of
grounds, arguing the Plaintiff lacks standing, its voluntary safety
recall moots the Plaintiff's claims, the primary jurisdiction of
the NHTSA should control, and the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim on any of the Complaint's individual counts.
District Judge Greg Kays concludes that the Complaint fails to
state a claim for fraudulent concealment. Therefore, the fraudulent
concealment claim is dismissed. The Complaint also fails to state
an MMPA claim and to state a claim of unjust enrichment. Judge Kays
adds that the declaratory-judgment request also fails for lack of a
valid underlying claim. Hence, these claims are also dismissed.
Nissan also contends that the Plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed with prejudice as moot because the NHTSA-regulated recall
provides him with a complete remedy. Nissan argues the Plaintiff's
claim that the recall is inadequate is based on speculation and
cannot forestall dismissal of the case as moot.
However, Judge Kays notes, it is unclear whether Nissan's recall
efforts adequately address the soft-braking issue. And even if they
did, those efforts would not address any economic damages the
Plaintiff may have. Accordingly, the Court holds the safety recall
does not moot the Plaintiff's claims.
Hence, the Court rules that the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed
without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycpmdd56 from Leagle.com.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend
multiple lawsuits, including consolidated cases in the District of
Columbia, related to fuel surcharges.
In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company
and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts
regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of
Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
In 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.
The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.
On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification.
The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 16, 2019.
Since that decision, various individual cases have been filed in
multiple jurisdictions and also consolidated in the District of
Columbia.
Norfolk said, "We believe the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do not
believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods. Norfolk Southern Corporation was
founded in 1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.
NSI SERVICES: Torres Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH TORRES v. NSI SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20LBCV00360 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated seeking relief against the Defendant for
its failure to pay all wages due, including regular and overtime
wages.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims arising from the Defendant's
failure to provide meal periods or premium compensation in lieu
thereof; failure to provide rest periods or premium compensation in
lieu thereof; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses; and failure
to pay wages due upon termination of employment in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Ms. Torres began her employment with the Defendant in 2016, as a
food service worker, with duties including making coffee, placing
food in carts for distribution, checking patient diet cards, and
serving patients. Ms. Torres was terminated by the Defendant on
June 5, 2019.
NSI provides support services including facility management and
food services for the healthcare industry throughout
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
George B. Singer, 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: krnahoney@mahonev-law.net
gsinger@mahoney-law.net
NUU MD INC: Faces Rivera TCPA Class Suit Over Telemarketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MISMA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NUU MD INC. D/B/A LIV RENEW, Case No. CACE-20-012916
(Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited telemarketing text messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights.
The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other
legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendant in transmitting advertising and telemarketing text
messages to her cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of
numerous other similarly situated persons using an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and without anyone's prior
express written consent, in violation of the TCPA.
The Defendant offers numerous advanced aesthetic treatments
including Botox (Botox, Dysport and Xeomin), Medical Weight Loss
treatment focusing on optimizing metabolism and limiting food and
Testosterone Replacement Therapy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 400 4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 533 4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
PANERA BREAD: Sally Suit Over MMPA Breach Moved to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL SALLY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY,
a/k/a SAINT LOUIS BREAD CO., and PANERA, LLC, Case No. 2022-CC01133
(Filed June 10, 2020), was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court,
St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on Aug. 13, 2020.
The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-01068-SEP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this
action individually and as class representative to recover damages
for allegedly unlawful practices under the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff's Petition alleges that Panera "markets [its]
Products as '100% clean' and/or 'clean' with no artificial
preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, or colors from artificial
sources," even though, according to the Plaintiff, Panera's
"Products contain multiple ingredients that are artificial,
chemical, and/or synthetic preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, and
colors." The Plaintiff contends that Panera misrepresented, and/or
concealed, suppressed, or omitted material facts in connection with
the sale, distribution, and/or advertisement of the Products.
Panera Bread is an American chain store of bakery-cafe fast casual
restaurants with over 2,000 locations, all of which are in the
United States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq.
ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
E-mail: dan@orlowskylaw.com
- and -
Adam M. Goffstein, Esq.
GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
E-mail: adam@goffsteinlaw.com
PHH MORTGAGE: Samuel FDCPA Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY SAMUEL, individually
and on behalf of a class of other similarly situated individuals v.
PHH MORTGAGE CORP., as successor by merger to OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 20STCV24008
(Filed June 22, 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 Aug. 11,
2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07206 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint presents a claim under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
PHH Mortgage provides mortgage financing solutions. The Company
offers real estate and private label solutions.[BN]
Defendant PHH Mortgage Corp. is represented by:
Nicholas A. Danella, Esq.
Kimberly M. Ingram, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
1819 5th Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2119
Telephone: (205) 521-8576
Facsimile: (205) 521-8800
E-mail: ndanella@bradley.com
kingram@bradley.com
PHILIP B. WILLETTE: Degenhardt Sues Over Illegal Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN DEGENHARDT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILIP B. WILLETTE CO, LPA,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00578-ALM (E.D. Tex., July 29, 2020) is
a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
According to the complaint, Defendant mailed a letter to Plaintiff
on or about June 19, 2020 in an attempt to collect Plaintiff's
alleged debt to AmerAssist. Defendant stated in the letter that
legal action could be pursued if the debt was not paid and
instructed Plaintiff how to pay his debt. However, Defendant is not
licensed to conduct business in the State of Texas, thereby
engaging in illegal debt collection activities in the State of
Texas.
Philip B. Willette Co, LPA is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
13601 Preston Rd E770
Dallas, TX 75240
Tel: (214) 494-1668
Fax: (469) 669-0786
Email: shawn@jaffer.law
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care
costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PVH RETAIL: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NAILA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. PVH RETAIL STORES LLC; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. RIC2001867 (Filed June 1, 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 Aug. 7, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01572 to the proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts class and individual claims
for failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
provide rest periods; failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements; and failure to pay all wages timely upon separation in
violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
meal and rest premium pay, liquidated damages, statutory waiting
time penalties, statutory wage statement penalties, costs, and
attorneys' fees.
PVH engages in the design and marketing of branded dress shirts,
neckwear, and sportswear.[BN]
The Defendant PVH Retail is represented by:
Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
Scott Morrison, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452
Telephone: +1.213 489 3939
Facsimile: +1.213 243 2539
E-mail: asommerfeld@jonesday.com
scottmorrison@jonesday.com
RISE DEVELOPMENT: Morales et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT for Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL MORALES and JUAN MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RISE DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERS, LLC; RISE CONCRETE LLC; LBS MAINTENANCE CORP.; BARRY
CALDWELL; and JOSE ALVAREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03517
(E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated carpenters and construction workers overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing
to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements
in a conspicuous place at their workplace, and failing to keep
payroll records.
Plaintiff Morales and Plaintiff Maldonado were employed by the
Defendants as carpenters and construction workers at various job
sites in New York City from January 2018 until January 2020 and
from July 2018 until August 2019, respectively.
Rise Development Partners, LLC is a construction company, with a
principal place of business located at 430 3rd Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York.
Rise Concrete LLC is a construction company, with a principal place
of business located at 430 3rd Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
LBS Maintenance Corp is a construction business with a principal
place of business located at 430 3rd Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Sutton Sues Over Refusal to Refund Tuition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daeja Sutton, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-04902 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 20, 2020), is brought for damages arising out of the
Defendant's conduct of improperly and unfairly refusing to refund
students' tuition for in-person education and on-campus amenities
following the Defendant's decision to suspend all in-person
classes.
The action arises out of the current COVID-19 global pandemic,
which has resulted in the suspension of in-person educational
services across the country. The Center for Disease Control and
Prevention ("CDC") has classified COVID-19 as a serious threat to
the health and safety of the public, and the World Health
Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be a pandemic.
The Defendant has engaged in unfair and inequitable conduct by
failing to refund students, who did not receive the in-person
educational experience that they paid for as a result of the
Defendant's decision to effectively close its campuses and switch
to online only educational instruction, according to the
complaint.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the unlawful
practices and conduct of the Defendant in violation of: the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and for
Conversion, and Unjust Enrichment.
The Plaintiff is an on-campus undergraduate student at RU, and the
Plaintiff paid tuition and fees to Defendant for the Spring 2020
semester.
The Defendant operates an undergraduate and graduate university
offering a range of academic programs, including associate degrees
and doctoral degrees, in an interactive learning environment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 800.400.6808
Facsimile: 800.520.5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: jason@kazlg.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
ROSALIA'S INC: Ramirez FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR MANUEL CORONEL
RAMIREZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b)
v. ROSALIA'S, INC., THOMAS BILLANTE, KOSMAS A. KALAS and MANUEL
PAUCAR, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, Miami-Dade
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-23270-MGC to the proceeding.
The lawsuit seeks to recover money damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Rosalia's is a family owned and operated full-service
catering.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adi Amit, Esq.
ADI AMIT, P.A.
101 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 300
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-5922
Facsimile: (954) 302-4963
E-mail: adi@defenderofbusiness.com
ROSS STORES: Aguilar FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE AGUILAR, JOSE
ANDRADE, JAMES MCCOOK, PAMELA RENTERIA, CAROLINA REYES, SCOTTIE
WALKER, ADRIANA JARAMILLO, KELLY KERR, CECILIA GUTIERREZ, MARIA
BARAJAS CHAVEZ, MICHAEL STASINSKI and KRISTINA PALMER, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. ROSS STORES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; DMSI STAFFING, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG20062230 (Filed May 21, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug.
13, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-05670-DMR to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Ross Stores, operating under the brand name Ross Dress for Less, is
an American chain of discount department stores headquartered in
Dublin, California. DMSI is a light industrial staffing and 3PL
company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory D. Wolflick, Esq.
Theodore S. Khachaturian, Esq.
WOLFLICK, KHACHATURIAN & BOUAYAD, APC
130 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 410
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 243-8300
E-mail: greg@wolfsim.com
theo@wolfsim.com
ROUTE 66 POST: Fails to Timely Pay All Wages, Johnson Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISHA JOHNSON, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. ROUTE 66 POST ACUTE LLC, a California limited liability
company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV30890 (Aug. 13,
2020), alleges that the Defendants have had a consistent policy
and/or practice of failing to timely pay all wages owed.
The lawsuit also accuses the Defendants of failing to provide rest
breaks, uninterrupted meal breaks and second meal breaks, and
accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff and all current and former hourly, non-exempt
employees in California within one year of filing this action to
the present are aggrieved employees of the Defendants. Plaintiff
Denisha Johnson worked as a dietary aid for Route 66.
Route 66 is a skilled nursing facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com
RSI HOME: Vasquez Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as FELIPE VASQUEZ, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. RSI HOME PRODUCTS, INC., an unknown business entity;
RSI HOME PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, INC., an unknown business entity;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2020-01147088-CU-OE-CXC (Filed July 7, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 12, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-01494 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action for unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
and unpaid minimum wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.
RSI provides houseware products. The Company offers kitchen, bath,
cabinet, countertop, and accessory products.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Joseph D. Hadacek, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
Telephone: 310 315 8200
Facsimile: 310 315 8210
E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
jhadacek@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415 844 9944
Facsimile: 415 844 9922
E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com
RYDER TRUCK: Tobin Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD TOBIN, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RYDER
TRUCK RENTAL, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through,
inclusive, Case No. RIC2002000 (Filed June 1, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug.
7, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01569 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges two claims against the Defendants for failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements and civil penalties
under the California Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code.
These claims are alleged on a class and representative basis with
the Plaintiff purporting to represent "all current and former
non-exempt employees of the Defendant in the State of California
who were paid 'Premium' and/or 'ONCALPAY' wages at any time between
April 6, 2019, through the present."
Ryder Truck provides commercial transportation, logistics, and
supply chain management solutions. The Company offers truck rental,
leasing, cross docking, distribution management, freight brokerage,
reverse logistics, and packaging services.[BN]
The Defendant Ryder Truck is represented by:
Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Telephone: +1 213 457 8000
Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080
E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
rtumanyan@reedsmith.com
SAN DIEGO GAS: Radcliff Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RADCLIFF, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved v. SAN
DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation; SEMPRA
ENERGY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 7-2020-00010919-CU-OE-CTL (Filed February 27, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Aug. 11, 2020.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01555-H-MSB to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings claims for failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide required meal
periods; and failure to provide required rest periods in violation
of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff began employment with Defendant San Diego Gas &
Electric Company on September 25, 2006, as an Operator Technician.
San Diego Gas & Electric Company is an electrical corporation
because it owns, controls, operates and/or manages at least one
electric plant within the State of California.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David B. Chidlaw, Esq.
Daniel F. De La Cruz, Esq.
Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
David A. Alvarez, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-3598
Telephone: 619 338 6500
Facsimile: 619 234 3815
E-mail: dchidlaw@sheppardmullin.com
ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com
dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com
dalvarez@sheppardmullin.com
SEPHORA USA: Couture Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KATHARINE COUTURE,
individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated
v. SEPHORA USA, INC., a Michigan corporation, and DOES 1-100
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02106 (Filed March 26, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division-Los Angeles) on Aug. 7, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07138-JAK-GJS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt.
The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for engaging
in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against
their salary paid employees in California. The Plaintiff contends
that this scheme involved misclassifying the "Service Managers",
including the Plaintiff as "exempt" managerial/administrative
employees for purposes of the payment of overtime compensation
when, in fact, they were "non-exempt" non- managerial employees
according to California law.
The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of herself and the members of
the Plaintiff Class as a result of employment policies, practices
and procedures more specifically described below, which violate the
California Labor Code, and the orders and standards promulgated by
the California Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial
Welfare Commission.
Sephora operates as a cosmetics and beauty stores. The Company
offers foundation sets, moisturizer, face powder, blush, contour,
eyeliner, nail polish, lipstick, face brushes, makeup remover, face
wash, toners, eye cream, face masks, perfume, body lotion, hand
cream, sunscreen, and other related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
The Defendant Sephora USA, Inc. is represented by:
Andrew Ralston Livingston, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 773-5700
Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
E-mail: alivingston@orrick.com
SIGNATURE RETAIL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Parks Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IAN PARKS and ANDREW WILLIAMSON, as aggrieved employees, on behalf
of themselves and other current and former employees v. SIGNATURE
RETAIL SERVICES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV29867 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 6, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide meal
periods and rest breaks, to pay all minimum and overtime wages, to
reimburse necessary work-related expenses, to maintain accurate
wage statements, and to pay all wages due and owing in a timely
fashion, in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the Defendants in a
non-exempt position.
Signature Retail is a national merchandising & fixture installation
organization, focusing in the hardware, homecenter and mass
merchant.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
Brian G. Lee, Esq.
YOON LAW, APC
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-0988
Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
SKY SOLAR: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Sky Solar
Holdings, Ltd. ("Sky" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SKYS) for
violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 6,
2020 and July 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 15, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Documents issued in support of Sky's
merger with a group (the "Offeror Group") were inadequate in
multiple ways. The Company's documents failed to meet disclosure
obligations under Rule 13e-3 about transaction fairness and the
valuation performed by the Offeror Group. The documents also failed
to meet Rule 13e-3 requirements on availability of appraisal rights
or other shareholder rights. The Company claimed there would be no
appraisal rights because a short-form merger under Cayman law does
not require a shareholder vote. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Sky,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
SNOW COMMERCE: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SNOW COMMERCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06674 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for 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.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, http://www.spongebobshop.com/,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 Web site is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the
ADA.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is an official SpongeBob merchandise company that
owns and operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Gem City Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to S.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GEM CITY FRESH-MEX, INC.
d/b/a QDOBA, and GEM CITY CUSTARD, INC., d/b/a CULVERS, On Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. SOCIETY
INSURANCE, Case No. 2020L622, was removed from the Illinois Circuit
Court, Madison County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Southern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00765 to the proceeding.
This lawsuit stems from an insurance coverage dispute involving the
Plaintiffs' claims for loss off business income and extra expense
as a result of Executive Orders issued by Illinois Governor J.B.
Pritzker in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Closure Orders). The
Plaintiffs allege that they are Society Insurance policyholders who
operate various Qdoba and Culver's franchise restaurants in central
Illinois.
Society Insurance is a business insurance carrier headquartered in
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Society has operated as a mutual company
since 1915 and has experienced significant growth in the last 10
years, increasing the policyholders' surplus from roughly $50
million in 2002 to $93 million in 2011.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas B. Underwood, Esq.
Michael D. Sanders, Esq.
PURCELL & WARDROPE, CHTD.
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 427-3900
E-mail: tbu@pw-law.com
msanders@pw-law.com
STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Sheppard Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TRACEE SHEPPARD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STAFFMARK
INVESTMENT, LLC; UPS MAIL INNOVATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 20CV365260 (Filed March 19, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on Aug. 6, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-05443 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleges six causes of action, including
failure to provide meal periods; failure to permit rest breaks;
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failure
to pay all wages due upon separation of employment in violation of
the California Labor Code.
Staffmark is a temporary staffing business. UPS Mail is a
high-volume mailing service provider.[BN]
The Defendant UPS Mail is represented by:
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
Jerald L. Monson, 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: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
jerald.monson@ogletree.com
- and -
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-442-4810
Facsimile: 415-442-4870
E-mail: Brian.Berry@ogletree.com
STATE FARM: Adams Sues over Lapses in Insurance Policy Procedures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04817-DMR (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2020)
alleges that the Defendant refuses to comply with mandatory
provisions of the California Insurance Code as well as California
common law regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance
policies.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that since January 1, 2013,
the Defendant and other related entities have systematically and
purposely failed to fully comply with procedural requirements
relating to the lapse and termination of life insurance policies
and has also failed to provide certain classes of policy owners,
insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of pending lapse or
termination. The Defendant has failed to notify thousands of policy
owners of their right to designate someone to receive critical
notices and information regarding life insurance, despite being
required to do so on an annual basis.
State Farm Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers life insurance products, as well as insures
cars, boats, motorcycles, homes, and businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19 th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
SUBARU CORPORATION: Adnan Sues over Defective Fuel Pump
-------------------------------------------------------
MUHAMMAD ADNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUBARU CORPORATION and SUBARU OF AMERICA,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09082 (D.N.J., July 17, 2020) is
an action alleging defect in the Defendants' motor vehicle in the
low-pressure fuel pump, which cause engine to shut down, presenting
an immediate and unreasonable risk of physical injury or death.
According to the complaint, Subaru has manufactured, marketed and
sold motor vehicles such as Ascent, Impreza, Legacy, and Outback,
with defective low-pressure fuel pumps that cause unpredictable
acceleration and engine stalls and render the Class Vehicles unsafe
to operate.
Despite knowledge of the defect, Subaru failed to fully disclose
the defect and the corresponding dangers to the Plaintiff and
members of the Class, and has not repaired or replaced the
defective systems and continues to sell its vehicles with the
unsafe and defective fuel systems.
Subaru Corporation manufactures and distributes automobile
products. The Company produces passenger cars, buses, motor vehicle
parts, and products. SUBARU also provides vehicle maintenance
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-1000
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
SWEET PETE'S: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SWEET PETE'S, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06675 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
http://www.sweetpetescandy.com/,to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Web site 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
Defendant's Web site is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the Web site violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is a candy company that owns and operates the Web
site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
TEXTRON INC: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Class Complaint Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 4, 2020, that the court overseeing the purported shareholder
class action suit initiated by Building Trades Pension Fund of
Western Pennsylvania and headed by IWA Forest Industry Pension Fund
("IWA") has granted Textron's motion to dismiss and closed the
case.
On August 22, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.
The suit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the
Arctic Cat acquisition and integration.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
On November 12, 2019, the Court appointed IWA Forest Industry
Pension Fund ("IWA") as the sole lead plaintiff in the case.
On December 24, 2019, IWA filed an Amended Complaint in the now
entitled In re Textron Inc. Securities Litigation.
On February 14, 2020, IWA filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on
March 6, 2020, Textron filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.
On July 20, 2020, the Court granted Textron's motion to dismiss and
closed the case.
Textron Inc. is one of the world's best known multi-industry
companies, recognized for its powerful brands such as Bell, Cessna,
Beechcraft, E-Z-GO, Arctic Cat and many more. The company leverages
its global network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance
businesses to provide customers with innovative products and
services. The company is bases in Providence, Rhode Island.
THOMAS H BOCK: Court Confirms 773K FINRA Award in Milliner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, Petitioner v. THOMAS
H. BOCK, et al., Respondents, Case No. 20-cv-01564-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an order:
-- denying the Respondents' motion to vacate arbitration
award; and
-- confirming the arbitration award in favor of the
Petitioner (amounting to $773,527.13 in compensatory
damages).
Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), Charlotte B.
Milliner, as trustee of the Charlotte B. Milliner Trust and as
owner and holder of the Charlotte B. Milliner SEP IRA, seeks an
order confirming an arbitration award issued in her favor by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Association ("FINRA"). Respondents
Thomas H. Bock and Mary C. Evans move to vacate the same award.
In December 2014, the Petitioner filed a statement of claim with
FINRA against the Respondents, Mutual Securities, Inc. ("MSI"), and
Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd. ("BEFC"). The Petitioner alleged
that the Respondents, as licensed and registered principals of MSI,
a broker-dealer registered with FINRA, violated federal law and
state law and FINRA rules in managing an investment account funded
by Petitioner's retirement savings. The Petitioner asserted
multiple claims and sought over $3 million in compensatory
damages.
The Parties stipulated to a stay of proceedings in March 2016
pending related litigation in federal court; specifically, a class
action suit the Petitioner brought against MSI. In June 2019, the
Petitioner notified the FINRA arbitration panel ("the Panel") that
the district court dismissed the case against MSI, and the
arbitration was reactivated on June 26, 2019. The Petitioner then
submitted a letter to the Panel advising it that she had settled
with MSI and was dismissing her claims against MSI. The arbitration
commenced as scheduled on November 12-13, 2019. At the conclusion
of the hearing, the Panel asked both parties to provide additional
evidence.
The Panel issued a unanimous award in the Petitioner's favor on
January 13, 2020, finding the Respondents jointly and severally
liable and awarding the Petitioner $773,527.13 in compensatory
damages. The Petitioner filed the instant petition to confirm the
award on March 3, 2020. The Respondents filed their motion to
vacate the award on April 13, 2020.
Motion to Vacate
The Respondents move to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to
Section 10(a)(3),(4) of the FAA on the grounds that: (1) the Panel
failed to postpone the hearing despite Respondents' showing of good
cause; and (2) the Panel failed to allow the Respondents "time to
conduct adequate discovery." The gravamen of the Respondents'
motion is that the Panel acted contrary to the FINRA Rules and in
doing so failed to afford the Respondents a fundamentally fair
hearing. The Petitioner opposes the motion to vacate on the grounds
that it is untimely, and that, in any event, the Respondents fail
to establish grounds for vacatur.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley opines that the
Respondents fail to show that the discovery deadlines resulted in a
hearing that was not fundamentally fair. Judge Corley adds, among
other things, that in sum, the Respondents fail to demonstrate that
the Panel engaged in misconduct such that the arbitration hearing
was not fundamentally fair.
The Court confirms the award pursuant to Section 9 because the
Respondents fail to show that vacatur is warranted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ygxqko from Leagle.com.
TIKTOK INC: A.S. BIPA Suit Transferred From S.D. to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as A.S., a Minor, through
Guardian, A.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00457
(Filed May 15, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 13, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04731 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John Z. Lee.
TikTok's owner, ByteDance, was founded in 2012 and based in
Beijing, China. ByteDance, is well known as a hit app factory that
has spent the last decade using technologies, such as artificial
intelligence and facial recognition. TikTok currently has
approximately 2.4 million active daily users, many of whom are
minors. This action seeks to ensure that minors' privacy is
adequately protected.
In direct violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the
TikTok app's proprietary facial recognition technology scans every
video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data
relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric
identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and
store a template of each face--all without ever informing anyone of
this practice, the complaint says.
TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create
short videos, favored by children and teens.[BN]
Plaintiff A.S. is represented by:
Francis (Casey) J. Flynn, Esq.
CAREY, DANIS AND LOWE
8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 662-2836
E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com
- and -
J. Christopher Wehrle, Esq.
WEHRLE LAW LLC
2601 S. Hanley Road
Brentwood, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 272-4113
Facsimile: (314) 272-4107
E-mail: chris@wehrlelaw.com
- and -
David M. Given, Esq.
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
The Presidio
39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 398-0900
E-mail: dmg@phillaw.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com
- and -
Marc Elliott Masters, Esq.
BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT
NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG & RHOW
1875 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
E-mail: mmasters@birdmarella.com
- and -
Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
Telephone: (314) 541-0317
E-mail: tyiatras@gmail.com
Plaintiff S.M. is represented by
James G. Onder, Esq.
ONDER, SHELTON, O'LEARY & PETERSON, LLC
110 E. Lockwood Ave., 2nd Floor
St. Louis, MO 63119
Telephone: (314) 963-9000
E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com
TIKTOK INC: D.M. BIPA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as D.M. and A.M., minors, by and
through their guardian Porchia Heidelberg, A.O., a minor, by and
through his guardian Jasmin Beverley, and M.P., a minor, by and
through her guardian Requeenis Gilder, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE INC.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-03185 (Filed May 8, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Aug. 13, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04725 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John Z. Lee.
TikTok's owner, ByteDance, was founded in 2012 and based in
Beijing, China. ByteDance, is well known as a hit app factory that
has spent the last decade using technologies, such as artificial
intelligence and facial recognition. TikTok currently has
approximately 2.4 million active daily users, many of whom are
minors. This action seeks to ensure that minors' privacy is
adequately protected.
In direct violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the
TikTok app's proprietary facial recognition technology scans every
video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data
relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric
identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and
store a template of each face--all without ever informing anyone of
this practice, the complaint says.
TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create
short videos, favored by children and teens.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
apolk@girardsharp.com
- and -
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
bmm@chimicles.com
TIKTOK INC: P.S. BIPA Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as P.S. a minor by and through
her guardian Cherise Slate, and M.T.W., a minor by and through her
Guardian Brenda Washington, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TikTok Inc., a corporation, and
ByteDance, Inc., a corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-02992 (Filed
April 30, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 13, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04724 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John Z. Lee.
TikTok's owner, ByteDance, was founded in 2012 and based in
Beijing, China. ByteDance, is well known as a hit app factory that
has spent the last decade using technologies, such as artificial
intelligence and facial recognition. TikTok currently has
approximately 2.4 million active daily users, many of whom are
minors. This action seeks to ensure that minors' privacy is
adequately protected.
In direct violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the
TikTok app's proprietary facial recognition technology scans every
video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data
relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric
identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and
store a template of each face--all without ever informing anyone of
this practice, the complaint says.
TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create
short videos, favored by children and teens.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda Kate Klevorn, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
E-mail: aklevorn@burnscharest.com
- and -
Seth R. Gassman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
E-mail: sgassman@cohenmilstein.com
TIKTOK INC: R.S. BIPA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as R.S. and J.S., through their
guardian, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TikTok Inc., a corporation, and ByteDance, Inc., a
corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03212 (Filed May 11, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 13, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04728 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John Z. Lee.
TikTok's owner, ByteDance, was founded in 2012 and based in
Beijing, China. ByteDance, is well known as a hit app factory that
has spent the last decade using technologies, such as artificial
intelligence and facial recognition. TikTok currently has
approximately 2.4 million active daily users, many of whom are
minors. This action seeks to ensure that minors' privacy is
adequately protected.
In direct violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the
TikTok app's proprietary facial recognition technology scans every
video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data
relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric
identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and
store a template of each face--all without ever informing anyone of
this practice, the complaint says.
TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create
short videos, favored by children and teens.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
- and -
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DI CELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
TIKTOK INC: S.A. BIPA Suit Moved From California to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as S.A., a minor, by and through
his mother and guardian, Maritza A., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TikTok Inc., a corporation, and
ByteDance, Inc., a corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-0329 (Filed May
14, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 13, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04729 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John Z. Lee.
TikTok's owner, ByteDance, was founded in 2012 and based in
Beijing, China. ByteDance, is well known as a hit app factory that
has spent the last decade using technologies, such as artificial
intelligence and facial recognition. TikTok currently has
approximately 2.4 million active daily users, many of whom are
minors. This action seeks to ensure that minors' privacy is
adequately protected.
In direct violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the
TikTok app's proprietary facial recognition technology scans every
video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data
relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric
identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and
store a template of each face--all without ever informing anyone of
this practice, the complaint says.
TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create
short videos, favored by children and teens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
TIMOTHY CORDER: Lawson Sues Over Unpaid OT and Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIMOTHY CORDER, JAMES CORDER, and GARY
CORDER, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-05137-PKH (W.D. Ark., August
4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by
misclassifying the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
workers as independent contractors and failing to compensate them
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a supervisor from
June 2016 until June 2020. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Ford, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
TOLL GLOBAL: Fail to Provide Suitable Seating, Watson Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGETT WATSON v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (USA) INC.; TOLL GLOBAL
FORWARDING SCS (USA) INC.; TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP HOLDCO INC.;
SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.; CHARTWELL STAFFING
SERVICES, INC.; INSPERITY EXPENSE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV30577 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 12, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated seeking civil penalties as a result of
the Defendants' violations of the Labor Code based on the
Defendants' failure to provide suitable seating and to maintain
temperature providing reasonable comfort.
The Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees are current, former
and/or future employees of the Defendants, who worked, work, or
will work for the Defendants as hourly non-exempt employees in
California.
Toll offers complete transport, logistics and supply chain services
in the USA, including multimodal international and domestic freight
forwarding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
aburton@lelawfirm.com
UNITED STATES: Habeas Corpus Bid in Grinis v. FMC Devens Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an
Opinion and Order denying the Petitioners' Request for the Issuance
of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the case captioned ALEXANDER GRINIS,
MICHAEL GORDON, and ANGEL SOLIZ, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Petitioners v. STEPHEN SPAULDING, Warden of
Federal Medical Center Devens, and MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Director of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in their official capacities,
Respondents, Case No. 20-10738-GAO (D. Mass.).
Invoking 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, the Petitioners ask the Court to
grant their request for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
The Petitioners allege that they and other inmates committed at the
United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") Federal Medical Center
Devens ("FMC Devens") in Ayer, Massachusetts, are held in
conditions placing them in "maximum danger from COVID-19." They
assert that the Respondents, who are the warden at FMC Devens and
the director of the BOP, "have demonstrated deliberate indifference
to the severe and obvious risk of rampant infection and death that
COVID-19 poses to FMC Devens prisoners, in violation of the U.S.
Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment."
The Petition alleges that the Respondents "have failed to provide
prisoners the ability to physically distance by ordering
compassionate release and/or implementing immediate transfers to
home confinement with sufficient speed or in sufficient numbers" in
order to make "effective social distancing" possible. In brief, the
Petitioners contend that the prison conditions that the Respondents
have permitted to exist amount to deliberate indifference to the
good health and safety of all inmates, themselves included, and
thus amount to unconstitutional imprisonment. The principal relief
the Petitioners seek is an order requiring the Respondents to
release a sufficient number of inmates through either compassionate
release or transfer to home confinement to "permit effective social
distancing."
The Petition is asserted as a class action under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and proposes "a class of all
persons in custody at FMC Devens," which is said to include two
"subclasses": "all persons who, according to applicable [Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines, are at high risk of
injury or death from COVID-19, due to their advanced age or medical
condition(s)" and also "all persons who are appropriate candidates
for early transfer to home confinement." The Petitioners have moved
for class certification and the Respondents have opposed it.
The Court notes that Plaintiff Alexander Grinis is no longer in
custody at FMC Devens. Since the filing of the Petition, he has
been released pursuant to a grant of compassionate release under 18
U.S.C. Section 3582(c) by the judge, who imposed his original
sentence.
Prior to the question of class certification, however, is the
taxonomic question of how properly to understand the nature of the
Petitioners' claims, according to Senior District Judge George A.
O'Toole, Jr. They insist that they seek the writ (or writs?) of
habeas corpus because the remedy they seek is the discharge of
imprisoned bodies from custody. The Respondents say that what the
Petitioners seek in substance is a "prisoner release order" as
defined by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), codified at
18 U.S.C. Section 3626, to ameliorate allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement.
The Respondents are right, Judge O'Toole states. He notes that the
core remedy provided by the writ of habeas corpus is release from
unlawful custody. He explains it is clear, not only from the
language of [Section 2241(c)(3)] . . ., but also from the
common-law history of the writ, that the essence of habeas corpus
is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and that the traditional function of the writ is to secure
release from illegal custody, citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 484 (1973).
That is not what the Petitioners here say they want, Judge O'Toole
says. What they say they want is for the FMC Devens inmate
population to be reduced sufficiently to promote feasible "social
distancing," and while that may include releasing the Petitioners
themselves, it need not necessarily occur; it would be enough if a
number of other prisoners were released to get to a satisfactory
overall population level.
The Petitioners have made it quite clear they do not necessarily
seek direct release from custody for themselves. The remedy they do
seek--that some yet to be determined number of yet to be identified
inmates should be released--is not a proper function of the writ,
Judge O'Toole opines.
Judge O'Toole also writes, among other things, that there is the
curious circumstance that the Petitioners might not, in the end, be
entitled themselves to habeas relief but nevertheless purport to
bring the claim on behalf of other inmates, who would be. There is
nothing in the long history of the writ that would support
permitting prisoner A to seek the writ to effect prisoner B's
discharge from custody, but that is an outcome that the petitioners
expressly propose. And this brings us back to the class
certification motion.
But the implications of the discussion go further than denying
class certification, according to Judge O'Toole. The two remaining
Petitioners have not challenged the fact or duration of their own
confinement at FMC Devens, and they may not be able to do so
credibly. In any event, they themselves say they do not necessarily
want to be released, a very odd thing for habeas petitioners to
say. This action is, thus, revealed as a false flag operation.
Flying the banner of habeas corpus, it is nevertheless in substance
a "civil action with respect to prison conditions" that seeks the
entry of a "prisoner release order" as those terms are defined in
the PLRA.
Consequently, for the reasons discussed in the Opinion, the several
pending motions--the Motion for Class Certification or
Representative Habeas Action, the Motion to Consolidate Cases, the
Motion to Substitute Named Petitioner, and the Motion to
Reconsider--are all DENIED.
Section 3626(a)(3)(C) affords the petitioners the opportunity to
request relief properly available under the PLRA by filing
"materials sufficient to demonstrate that the requirements of
subparagraph (A) have been met." If the Petitioners wish to do so,
they must file such materials within seven days of the entry of
this Opinion and Order, Judge O'Toole rules. If they do not do so,
this action will be DISMISSED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd2gf6zq from
Leagle.com.
UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to Revive Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that a notice of appeal has been filed in the consolidated
securities class action suit entitled, In re Unum Group Securities
Litigation.
Three alleged securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against Unum Group and individual defendants:
1. On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action
lawsuit entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney,
John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018.
The plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at
artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about
the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care
claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital
management plans and long-term care reserves.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.
2. On July 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action
lawsuit entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney,
John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The
allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in the
Pittman matter.
The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.
3. On July 25, 2018, an alleged securities class action
lawsuit entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System
v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and
Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between October 27, 2016 and May 1, 2018.
The allegations and damages claimed mirror those in the Pittman
matter.
The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.
On November 9, 2018, the court consolidated the Pittman,
Cunningham, and City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System
cases into one matter entitled In re Unum Group Securities
Litigation, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and directed the plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint.
On January 15, 2019, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial as well as
costs, expenses, and attorney's fees.
On March 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.
On November 4, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the motion.
On June 1, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed the cases with prejudice.
On June 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Unum said, "The appeal is in a very preliminary stage and the
outcome is uncertain. We believe the appeal and the underlying
claims lack merit and reserves have not been established for these
matters as we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses. However, an adverse outcome in one or more of these actions
could, depending on the nature, scope, and amount of any ruling,
materially adversely affect our consolidated results of operations
in a period."
Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum
International, Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The
company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
VEGA CAPITAL: Mish Alleges Price-Fixing of NYMEX Crude Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
MISH INT'L MONETARY INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD. and JOHN
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04577 (N.D. Ill., August
4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Commodity Exchange Act and the Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in an
illegal scheme to manipulate the prices of New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX) West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures
contracts between at least April 20, 2020 and at least until April
21, 2020. Numerous traders associated with Defendant Vega Capital
purchased a large volume of Trading at Settlement (TAS) contracts.
These contracts gave Defendant Vega Capital the right to purchase
May 2020 contracts at a price that would later be determined by the
settlement price of the May 2020 contract at the close of trading
on April 20, 2020. These traders worked together to aggressively
sell May 2020 WTI futures contracts and other related instruments
for the purpose of depressing the price, including the settlement
price, of the May 2020 WTI futures contract. This concerted selling
effort put downward pressure on the price of the May 2020 WTI
futures contract. The Defendants repeatedly engaged in a highly
unusual violation of the standard selling practice by seeking to
uneconomically sell May 2020 WTI crude oil futures contracts at the
lowest possible price so as to register the lowest possible prices
and settlement price for the May 2020 contract.
As a result of the Defendants' manipulation, the Plaintiff and
Class members transacted in May 2020 NYMEX WTI crude oil futures
contracts at artificial prices and were deprived of a lawful
market.
Mish International Monetary, Inc. is a company offers rare coins,
precious metals, estate jewelry, collectible wrist & pocket watches
with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California.
Vega Capital London, Ltd. is a company that provides access to
securities exchanges on a variety of trading platforms, with a
principal place of business in London, England. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Andy Szot, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
- and –
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
Christopher M. McGrath, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
Facsimile: (212) 719-4775
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Shiflett Class Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viagogo
Entertainment, Inc. The case is captioned as Lauren Shiflett, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01880 (M.D. Fla.,
Aug. 12, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Deceptive Trade
Practices-related laws. The nature of suit is stated as 190
Contract: Other.
Viagogo provides internet based services. The Company operates as
an online platform for live sport, music, and entertainment
tickets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
VITOL INC: Cummings-Breithaupt Alleges Gas Price Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH CUMMINGS-BREITHAUPT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. VITOL INC.; SK ENERGY
AMERICAS INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; and DOES 1–100,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05349 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2020 ) is
a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, for damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief against Defendants for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1),
the California Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
16720 et seq.), and the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq. ("UCL").
The lawsuit involves agreements that are per se unlawful among
horizontal competitors-Vitol, SK Energy, and SK Trading and certain
of their employees-to restrain competition in the spot market for
gasoline formulated for use in California and in certain gasoline
blending components used in that gasoline.
According to the complaint, Defendants' illegal scheme commenced as
a result of a disruption in certain refining capacity that occurred
at the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, California on February 18,
2015. Portions of that refinery-specifically the refinery's
cracking unit-exploded in the early morning hours of that day and,
as a result, eliminated certain portions of that refinery's ability
to refine alkylates between February 2015 and June 2016. The named
Defendants, who are major traders in the California spot market for
gasoline and gasoline blending products, realized that the refinery
explosion could serve as an opportunity to artificially inflate the
price of gasoline traded on wholesale spot markets in California
and to also increase the price of alkylates, the prices of which
are tied directly to the wholesale price of gasoline, without
unwanted scrutiny by other market participants and regulators.
Defendants further entered into agreements with each other to share
the profits and disguise their illegal conduct by negotiating large
contracts to supply gasoline and gasoline blending components for
delivery in California, immediately upon learning of the explosion
at the Torrance refinery.
Prices for spot market gasoline contracts went up almost
immediately for deliveries to San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Empirical studies demonstrate that changes in the wholesale price
of gasoline are passed through to retail prices and that wholesale
price increases are passed through much more quickly than wholesale
price decreases.
Plaintiff and the Class were injured because they paid more for
gasoline within the State of California than they would have paid
in a retail gasoline market untainted by Defendants' illegal
conduct.
Vitol Inc. is an energy company with its principal place of
business in Houston, Texas.
SK Energy Americas, Inc. is a petroleum and petroleum products
company located in Houston, Texas and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
SK Energy International.
SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation
that operates as an oil broking agency, with its head office at 26
Jongno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 986-1400
Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
- and -
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
St. Paul, MN 55101
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
r.yard@rwblawfirm.com
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: D.D.C. Narrows Claims in Toggas TILA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a
Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned KATHRYN TOGGAS, et
al. v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03407 (TNM)
(D.D.C.).
In May 2008, during the height of the 2008 housing bubble,
Plaintiffs Kathryn and Thomas Toggas executed a $1.35 million
adjustable-rate mortgage note with Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, to
purchase a home at 3112 Legation Street NW, in Washington, D.C. A
year later, they defaulted. The Toggases' lenders sued for
foreclosure, and for many years now, they have been embroiled in
that foreclosure lawsuit in the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia. Wachovia later transferred the debt to U.S. Bank, and
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage assumed administration of the loan,
"including receipt and processing of payments, resolution of
payment-related issues, and response to any other inquiries" about
the loan.
Here, in a role-reversal, the Toggases have sued Wells Fargo &
Company, Wells Fargo National Association, and U.S. Bank National
Association (collectively, "the Lenders"). They claim the Lenders
violated a slew of lending laws, including the Consumer Protection
Procedures Act, Truth-in-Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and Homeowners Protection Act. Acting pro se, the
Toggases claim the Lenders violated these various statutes because
they never shared key information about their loan and mismanaged
their digital records.
The Toggases' Complaint raises six counts against the Lenders.
Count I alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation
of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"). Count II
alleges that the Lenders failed to disclose lending terms required
by Section 144 of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), of its
implementing regulation, Regulation Z. Count III alleges
unconscionable and unfair violations of Sections 807(2) and (10) of
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Count IV alleges
the Lenders failed to terminate private mortgage insurance in
violation of Section 4901(b) of the Homeowners Protection Act
("HPA"). Count V alleges the Lenders violated the TILA by failing
to notify the Plaintiffs "in writing of the transfer of the loan
from the original lender, such as Wells Fargo & Company to US
Bank." Count VI seeks "Declaratory and Injunctive Relief preventing
Defendants from the foreclosure sale until a decision on the merits
has been made in this case."
The Lenders filed a motion to dismiss. The Toggases oppose the
Motion. The Lenders argue that the Toggases missed their chance to
file these claims long ago in the Superior Court, so the claims are
now barred by time and claim preclusion. The Lenders also argue,
among other things, that the Toggases' Complaint must be dismissed
for failure to state a claim.
Upon consideration of both parties' arguments and the record of
this case, the Court agrees with the Lenders that Counts I through
IV of the Toggases' challenges to their twelve-year-old loan are
untimely and improper. The Court, therefore, grants the Motion
related to those counts (dismissed with prejudice). But the Court
will deny the Motion for one substantive claim, Count V, as well as
the portion of Count VI seeking relief under it.
The Court states that it does not decide at the moment whether the
Toggases may properly seek declaratory or injunctive relief under
Count V. The Court does not reach this issue and will permit Count
VI to move forward until the parties have properly briefed it.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6whv8dl from Leagle.com.
WARRENTECH CORP: Court Narrows Jett's Bid for Document Production
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants' Initial Disclosures and
Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production
in the case captioned AMY JETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WARRENTECH CORPORATION and AMT
WARRANTY CORPORATION, Case No. 18-cv-1366-SMY (S.D. Ill.).
The lawsuit is a proposed class action in which the Plaintiff, Amy
Jett, alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and other state common law claims
against the Defendants for purportedly routinely failing to provide
purchasers of warranty plans known as extended service plans
("ESPs") any benefits or services under the plans when the products
fail during the original manufacturer's warranty. Relevant to her
claims, the Plaintiff alleges she purchased an ESP sold by the
Defendants to provide coverage for a refrigerator she bought from
retailer H.H. Gregg. According to the Plaintiff, contrary to the
terms of the ESP, the Defendants refused to assist or pay for the
repair or replacement of her refrigerator after it suffered an
apparent manufacturing defect and became inoperable shortly after
purchase.
This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly to
address the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants' Initial
Disclosures and Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests
for Production. The Defendants responded on March 24, 2020, and the
Court held a telephonic motion hearing on April 21, 2020. The
Parties were ordered to meet-and-confer, the Defendants were
directed to serve supplemental written discovery responses, and, if
any disputes remained, the Parties were directed to notify the
Court.
The Court was notified by the Parties on June 2, 2020 that disputes
concerning the Defendants' responses to the Plaintiff's requests
for production of documents remained. Judge Daly held a discovery
dispute conference on June 4, 2020.
The Court heard argument from the Parties, and issued rulings on
the requests for production of documents at issue, including:
-- Request for Production No. 4: The Plaintiff seeks all
documents that may support any opposition Defendants may
have to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Defendants' objection is SUSTAINED. The Defendants are
reminded of their duty to supplement under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(e); and
-- Request for Production No. 5: The Plaintiff seeks all
communications relating to the subject matter of this
litigation and the allegations of the complaint, including
all communications by and between the Defendants and the
Plaintiff or any other putative class member.
The Defendants' objections on the basis of relevancy and
proportionality are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN
PART.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants' Initial
Disclosures and Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests
for Production is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The
Defendants' shall supplement their responses to the Plaintiff's
First Request for Production of Documents.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydam867u from Leagle.com.
WESTROCK SERVICES: Castrejon Labor Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as HUMBERTO CASTREJON, JR., on
behalf of himself and other similarly-situated employees v.
WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00279027 (May 20,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on Aug. 12, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01609-TLN-AC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is liable to him and Class
Members for the following: failure to pay applicable minimum wage,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods pursuant to the California Labor Code.
WestRock is an American corrugated packaging company.[BN]
Defendant Westrock Services is represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Scott P. Jang, Esq.
Isabella L. Shin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com
Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com
WINS FINANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court.
Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: WINS)
WINS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 31, 2018
- July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8447&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the ultimate
repayment of the RMB 580 million Guohong Loan was highly uncertain;
(ii) nonpayment of the Guohong Loan would have a significant impact
on the Company's financial and operating condition; (iii)
weaknesses in Wins's internal control over its financial reporting
persisted despite the Company's repeated assurances to investors
that it was taking steps to remediate these weaknesses; (iv) the
foregoing issues, among others, made the resignation of Wins's
independent auditor foreseeably likely; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
WW INTERNATIONAL: Quintanilla Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA QUINTANILLA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WW
INTERNATIONAL, INC., dba WEIGHT WATCHERS, a Virginia Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
56-2020-00542259-CU-MC-VTA (Filed June 10, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for Ventura County to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 10, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06261-UA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of all individuals
in the United States, who paid monthly membership fees from March
17, 2020, to a date to be determined. The Plaintiff further
purports to bring a claim on behalf of a subclass of all
individuals in California who paid monthly membership fees from
March 17, 2020, to a date to be determined. The Plaintiff asserts
that the Class members consist of thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands of [WW] customers.
WW International, formerly Weight Watchers International, Inc., is
a global company headquartered in the U.S. that offers various
products and services to assist in healthy habits, including weight
loss and maintenance, fitness, and mindset such as the Weight
Watchers comprehensive diet program.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
greg@jameshawkinssaplc.com
michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Defendant WW International is represented by:
Tami Kameda Sims, Esq.
ATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
Telephone: (310) 788-4400
Facsimile: (310) 788-4471
E-mail: tami.sims@katten.com
ZENITH AMERICAN: Wilson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as YVONNE WILSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. ZENITH AMERICAN SOLUTIONS, INC., an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-585046
(Filed July 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 Aug. 12,
2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05617 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Zenith has violated the California
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, the California Labor
Code, and the California Business & Professions Code by, failing to
pay overtime; failing to provide meal and rest periods; and failing
pay minimum wage.[BN]
Defendant Zenith is represented by:
Christopher E. Parker, Esq.
Bradford G. Harvey, Esq.
Scott E. Simmons, Esq.
MILLER & MARTIN PLLC
Volunteer Building
832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1200
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: 423 756-6600
Facsimile: 423 785-8480
E-mail: chris.parker@millermartin.com
E-mail: brad.harvey@millermartin.com
scott.simmons@millermartin.com
- and -
Brian K. Nagatani, Esq.
HIXSON NAGATANI LLP
4655 Old Ironsides Drive, Suite 420
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Telephone: 408 486-9988
Facsimile: 408 727-6617
E-mail: brian@hnemploymentlaw.com
[*] New Indian Consumer Protection Act Rules Allow Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
K Raveendran, writing for Daily Excelsior, reports that a historic
development that has empowered the Indian consumer like never
before has gone largely unnoticed amidst the country's
preoccupation with the Covid pandemic and its dire consequences for
the economy and the lives of the people.
Rules framed under the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 have given
a special tool in the hands of the consumers, which gives them
tooth to act against defective products and services and claim
compensation.
The tool, in the form of class action suit, enables one individual
complaint of a faulty product or service to be treated as an
'interest group' of other people in similar circumstances and
jointly claim compensation.
Class action suit is widely used in western countries to make
producers and service providers accountable for the lapses. The
threat of class action keeps companies in constant vigil about
their products and services as a successful challenge can even
determine the future of the company as it can pull down the value
of its share abruptly. There have even been cases of abuse of the
facility by interested parties.
A class action lawsuit can be invoked to recall an entire batch of
faulty products based on a single complaint. If one lot of a
consumer item, from a pin to an automobile, has a common defect, a
single complaint can trigger the recall of the entire batch of
product through the class action.
As the concept is new to India, it might take considerable time for
it to sink in. Producers and service providers have to get used to
a new legal recourse that their customers have access to challenge
products of questionable quality.
In a strange coincidence, a class action suit involving Google Plus
users is currently progressing, as if providing a live demo of the
concept.
Google operated the Google+ social media platform for consumers
from June 2011 to April 2019. In 2018, Google announced that the
Google+ platform had experienced software bugs between 2015 and
2018, which allowed app developers to access certain Google+
profile field information in an unintended manner.
Plaintiffs Matthew Matic, Zak Harris, Charles Olson, and Eileen M.
Pinkowski thereafter filed a lawsuit asserting various legal claims
on behalf of a putative class of Google+ users who were allegedly
harmed by the software bugs. Google denied the plaintiffs'
allegations, denied any wrongdoing and any liability whatsoever,
and contended that no 'class members', including the plaintiffs,
have sustained any damages or injuries due to the software bugs.
However, in July the US District Court for the Northern District of
California, granted preliminary approval of this class action
Settlement and directed the litigants to provide this notice to all
Google Plus users about the settlement. Consequently, all Google
Plus users, including those in India, have received a notice from
Google, based on its records, indicating their eligibility to
receive a payment from the settlement.
Under the Settlement, Google will pay $7.5 million, which will be
used to fund class member settlement payments; attorneys' fees not
exceeding 25% of the settlement fund and costs; general
administration fees and costs etc.
Class members who submit a valid claim may receive a pro rata share
of the net settlement fund up to a cash payment of $12 depending on
the number of claimants. Each class member can submit only one
claim. Any funds remaining in the fund after distribution to class
members will be distributed to recipients that have been selected
by a neutral third party and approved by the court.
The payments for the class members who submit a valid claim will be
made by electronic payment, such as PayPal or digital check.
Users have been given four options, including submission of a valid
claim by October 8, 2020 to receive a payment, in return of which
the Google Plus users will give up their rights to sue Google or
any other released entities regarding the legal claims in this
case. The link to submit the form was been provided.
The other options include the freedom to opt out of the class
action settlement, allowing users to pursue the case independently
against Google. A third option allows users to file objections to
the settlement and a fourth for not doing anything, which would
amount to foregoing the claim. (IPA). [GN]
*********
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 ***