/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201014.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 14, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 206
Headlines
10400 ROOSEVELT: Novosad Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for LPNs
3 EAST 48TH REST: Basurto Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ALAMO MUSIC: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Faces London Suit in Calif. Over Tort Claim
ALEX AND ANI LLC: Brooks Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
AMERICAN AIR: Alters Employees' Work Time, Mulledy Suit Alleges
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Frank Castellon Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
APEX HOMECARE: Dulabay Sues for Denied OT Pay, Breaks
APPLE INC: Pistacchio Alleges Monopoly in iOS Mobile Gaming Market
AQUA NEW JERSEY: Barone Sues Over Unclean Drinking Water
ARGOS USA: $6.7MM Settlement in McGaffin Suit Has Final Approval
ATS INC: Butler Slams Misclassification of Drivers
BA SPORTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Seeks Blinds' Full & Equal Web Site Access
BANK OF AMERICA: Fisher PA Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
BEARD CLUB: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: Savas Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Cir.
CARROWS RESTAURANTS: Cota Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Faces Madlinger FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida
CHARTER FOODS: Burris, Thatcher Seek Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
CHARTER FOODS: Davis, Schleufer Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
CHEVRON USA: Gilcrease Slams Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
CITY SANDWHICH: Fernandez Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
CLIENT SERVICES: Shtroks Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces Bribery Case Over Electricity Rate Hike
COSMEDICAL TECH: Hecht Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action Suit
DANNI PROPERTIES: Shortchanges Driver's Vehicle Reimbursements
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN: NES Misclassifies Supervisors, Cayton Claims
DC INTERNATIONAL: Elliot Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DURANGO FARM: Sanchez Sues Over Agricultural Workers' Unpaid Wages
EMPLOYEE AWARENESS: Katz Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimile Messages
ENERGY ARMOR: Daly Sues Over Radioactive Bracelet
ENTERTAIN ART: Cruz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
EUROSOCKS INTERNATIONAL: Website not Blind-Friendly, Says Cruz
EVERGLADES COLLEGE: Hedges Claims Website Not Blind-accessible
EYETIQUE INC: Cruz Files Suit Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
FIRST MOTOR: Faces Broshinsky Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Power Consumers Slam Electricity Surcharge
FULL CIRCLE HOMES: Paguada Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
FUNNY TIME: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Wiley Claims
GETAROUND INC: Faces Kenarki Suit in California Over Unpaid Wages
GOOGLE LLC: Account Holders Slam Personal Data Retention
GRANTS PASS, OR: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Blake Civil Rights Suit
GREAT AMERICAN: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
GULF COAST MOTOR: Crawford Suit Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA
HARRY'S.COM INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Faces Ober Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Website Not Disabled User-Friendly, Mercer Says
HOME DEPOT: Eisele Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to D. Oregon
HOME FINANCING: Faces Repich FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Easley RICO Suit
JAVITCH BLOCK LLC: Smith Files Suit Over Collection Proceedings
JOSEPH JOSEPH INC: Paguada Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
JPMORGAN CHASE: Brooks Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible to Blind
KING SPA: Faces Rhee Wage and Hour Suit in New Jersey
KROGER COMPANY: Thornton Consumer Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
LA DUC FLAMBEAU: Borrowers Sue Over Usurious Lending Rates
LEVEL GROUP USA: Guglielmo Claims Website not Blind-Friendly
LHC GROUP INC: Health Aides Seek OT Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
LOGISTICARE INC: Farah Hits Misclassification, Seeks Proper Wages
LT. COL. HAMILTON: Dismissal of Rodrigues Action Sought
LYFT INC: Faces Smith TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
MARCARELLI DESIGN: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 1871: Court Denies GSK's Bid to Sanction Allied Counsel
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Kristal Sues Over 35% Drop in Share Price
MICHIGAN: Otworth Sues Over Unlawful COVID-19 Executive Orders
MIJ INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Ford FLSA Suit Alleges
MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Parents Sue Over Closure of Schools
MORTON COUNTY, ND: Appeals Decision in Dundon Suit to 8th Circuit
MURRAYS CHEESE: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
NATIONAL CONTINENTAL: MSP Sues Over Unreimbursed Medical Expenses
NATIONS RECOVERY: Class Settlement in Esposito Suit Gets Prelim. OK
NEAR NORTH HEALTH: Ray Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
NESTED BEAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Monegro Says
NEWPOINT FRANCHISOR: Elatt Slams Illegal SMS Ads
NY ROMANTICOS: Guevara Seeks Overtime Pay, Denied Wage Statements
OHIO: Courts Grants Class Certification in Community Refugee Suit
ORIGINAL ESPINAL: Cuauhtenco Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PHH MORTGAGE: Borrowers Sues Over Unauthorized Fees
PJ CLEVELAND: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Dillon Says
RESULTS COMPANIES: Shortchanged Agents' Pay, Says Suit
REXAHN PHARMA: Stahlman Sues Over Ocuphire Merger Deal
RHMT LLC: Draper Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Riviera Beach Sues Over 19% Drop in Share Price
RX VALET: Faces Gallion TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SAFETY HOLDINGS: Moulvi Sues Over Illegal Background Check
SAN BERNARDINO: Social Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
SANRAJ INC: Hossain Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Warwick Suit Moved From Illinois to Wisconsin
SEIDNER-MILLER INC: Faces Quintero Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
SEMPER SOLARIS: Faces Rojas Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
SERVICEMASTER COMPANY: Edwards Labor Suit Hits Unpaid Overtime
SILVER BOURBON: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Kikuchi Suit Claims
SMC CORPORATION: Downing Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPRING CREEK: Galvez BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ST. ANTHONY'S: House Files Suit for Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination
ST. ELIZABETH MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Christensen Suit Partly OK'd
STOCKX LLC: Esquer Suit Transferred to Michigan Eastern District
STUBHUB INC: Reynolds Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. California
TOP COAT EPOXY: Godinez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY: Lupolover Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Ceres Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Ellison Hits Share Drop Over Missed Earnings
TYSON FOODS: Faces Mason Antitrust Suit Over Broiler Growing
UNITED PROPANE: Eyes Seeks Overtime Wages for Delivery Drivers
UNITED SPECIALTY: Bradley Suit Moved From Arkansas to California
UNITED STATES: Homeland's Bid to Claw Docs in Al Otro Suit Denied
US OIL FUND: Ephrati Suit Hits Share Price Drop
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Berg Slams Share Drop in IPO-related Suit
VIRGINIA COMMUNITY: Court Junks Dismissal Motion in Moore Suit
WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Beardsley Claims
WESTFIELD AMERICA: Cota Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WHELAN EVENT: Faces Gorman Suit in Florida Over FCRA Violation
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Franke Labor Suit in California Superior Court
*********
10400 ROOSEVELT: Novosad Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for LPNs
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE NOVOSAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 10400 ROOSEVELT OPERATING LLC d/b/a ST. JOHN NEUMANN
CENTER FOR REHABILITATION & HEALTHCARE, Case No. 2:20-cv-04986
(E.D. Pa., Oct. 8, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
properly pay overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a licensed practical
nurse from July 2016 until her separation from employment on
February 11, 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that she regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week, but has not been properly compensated by the Defendant an
overtime premium calculated at one and one-half times her regular
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a work
week, as required by the FLSA.
The Defendant has allegedly engaged in a long-term scheme of wage
abuse against its LPNs, and others similarly situated, habitually
deducting 30 minutes of compensable pay from each shift worked,
regardless of whether the Plaintiff and all those similarly
situated actually received an uninterrupted 30-minute break. In
addition, the Defendant often forced the Plaintiff and the class to
work after their shift was scheduled to end. The Defendant refused
to pay the Plaintiff and the class for the work that they completed
after their shift was over. The Defendant's conduct resulted in
unpaid wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and
PMWA, the suit says.
10400 Roosevelt Operating LLC, d/b/a St. John Neumann Center for
Rehabilitation & Healthcare, is a skilled nursing facility in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Michael Groh, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-021
E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
3 EAST 48TH REST: Basurto Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Segundo Gonzalez Basurto, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 3 East 48th Rest. Inc., Eamon
Maher, John Mahon, Vincent Doe and Marcelo Moreno, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-05736 (S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide
itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control an Irish Restaurant, located at
3 East 48th Street, New York under the name "PJ Moran's" where
Basurto was employed as a dishwasher. He claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. Defendant failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium, asserts the Plaintiff. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
ALAMO MUSIC: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alamo Music Center,
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Alamo Music Center, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08408 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alamo Music Center Inc was founded in 1927. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of musical instruments, sheet
music, and similar supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Faces London Suit in Calif. Over Tort Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albertsons Companies,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ryan London and Bryan Mejia, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., Does 1 to 20, Groceryworks.com
Operating Company, LLC and Safeway Inc., Case No. CGC20587016 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 28, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the business tort-related laws.
A case management conference is set for March 3, 2021, before Judge
Samuel K. Feng.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., is an American grocery company founded
and headquartered in Boise, Idaho. With 2,252 stores as of the
first quarter of fiscal year 2021 and 270,000 employees as of
fiscal year 2020, the Company is the second-largest supermarket
chain in North America after Kroger, which has 2,750 stores.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon Wayne Renneisen, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP
351 California St., Ste. 600
San Francisco, CA 94104-2404
Telephone: (415) 625-5025
E-mail: grenneisen@cornerlaw.com
ALEX AND ANI LLC: Brooks Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Brooks, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Alex and Ani,
LLC, Alex and Ani California, LLC and Alex and Ani Retail, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01482 (E.D. Cal., July 22, 2020), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.
Alex and Ani operates the www.alexandani.com website that allows
consumers to purchase various bracelets, necklaces, rings, bangles,
earrings, charms, anklets and toe rings, along with pins,
bracelets, charms, bangles, necklaces and anklets. Brooks is
legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by
the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
AMERICAN AIR: Alters Employees' Work Time, Mulledy Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM MULLEDY, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons v. AMERICAN AIR FURNACE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-05185-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 2, 2020), is brought by the
Plaintiff to challenge the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies
and practices of altering work time, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio wage laws.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
electrician from January to July 22, 2020, alleges that the
Defendant regularly altered the handwritten recorded work time to
reduce the total hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated non-exempt employees to 40 or below in a workweek. As a
result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek,
the Plaintiff alleges that his and other similarly situated
non-exempt employees' lawfully earned overtime compensation were
not paid by the Defendant at one and one-half times their correctly
calculated regular rate of pay.
American Air Furnace Company provides heating systems repair and
maintenance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 824-5770
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Frank Castellon Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank M. Castellon (doing business as Castellon Professional
Services), Momentum Accounting, Inc. and Shirley Palomino Chirinos
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. American Express National Bank, Bank of America,
N.A., Bank of Marin, Bank of the West, Cambridge Savings Bank,
Celtic Bank, Citibank, N.A., Comerica Bank, First Bank, First
Republic Bank, Grasshopper Bank, N.A., Heritage Bank of Commerce,
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Kabbage, Inc., River City Bank, Silicon
Valley Bank, The Mortgage Capital Development Corporation, U.S.
Bank National Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-04894 (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2020) seeks monetary
and/or equitable relief, statutory, treble, punitive or exemplary
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit, including costs of notice, administration and
expert fees and such other legal or equitable relief, including
injunctive or declaratory relief resulting from unjust enrichment
in breach of contract—third party beneficiary and for violation
of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act
and California's Unfair Competition Law.
On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses
and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by
the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the
"Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses
with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of
cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered
by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by
private lenders, including the Defendants.
Castellon Professional Services, Momentum Accounting, Inc. and
Shirley Palomino Chirinos are CPA firms specializing in business
advisory services, individual and business tax compliance and
outsourced accounting solutions. They assisted clients in preparing
their applications for a PPP loan from the Defendants, but the
latter has failed to pay Plaintiffs the agent fees. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
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
Email: mark@geragos.com
meiselas@geragos.com
- 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
APEX HOMECARE: Dulabay Sues for Denied OT Pay, Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------
Allyn Dulabay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apex Homecare Services, Inc., Tess Perez,
Rose De La Cuesta and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01377, (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and minimum wage owed, liquidated damages,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California labor laws.
Defendants operate an agency that provides services to homecare
facilities. Dulabay worked for Apex as a caregiver from October 15,
2018 to January 3, 2020. Dulabay claims to have never received
overtime pay at one-and-a-half times the regular minimum wage rate
for any hours worked despite being present at and required to work
for longer than eight hours per shift, an increased rate for night
shifts, and scheduled breaks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com
john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
APPLE INC: Pistacchio Alleges Monopoly in iOS Mobile Gaming Market
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PISTACCHIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-07034 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 8,
2020), is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California Cartwright Act,
California Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopolization of the
market for iOS subscription-based mobile gaming services through a
series of anti-competitive acts. These anti-competitive activities
include imposing technical restrictions on iOS devices so that
users cannot access subscription-based mobile gaming services other
than Apple Arcade, imposing contractual restrictions on developers
to distribute their apps solely through Apple App Store, abusing
its App Store Review Guidelines in order to protect its monopoly in
iOS subscription-based mobile gaming services market, and rejecting
the applications of other subscription-based mobile gaming service
publishers on App Store.
As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members have been harmed due to limited choice, stymied innovation,
and reduction of quality of service associated with iOS
subscription-based mobile gaming services.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company, with
its principal place of business at One Apple Park Way, in
Cupertino, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
- and –
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Peter Barile, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
nfeigenbaum@lowey.com
AQUA NEW JERSEY: Barone Sues Over Unclean Drinking Water
--------------------------------------------------------
Donna Barone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aqua New Jersey, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
CAM-L-002643-20 (E.D. Va., August 3, 2020), seeks indemnification
and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred and injunctive
relief pursuant to the New Jersey Environmental Rights Act.
Barone receive her home water service from "Aqua NJ Blackwood," a
division of Aqua New Jersey, Inc. On March 27, 2020, the latter
issued a notice that its drinking water system failed to meet
treatment requirements for disinfection residual and that its water
may have contained disease-causing microorganisms. Barone suffers
from a severely compromised immune system. She incurred
out-of-pocket medical expenses in the form of a co-pay for doctor's
consultation, asserts the lawsuit. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen DeNittis, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
Fax: (856) 797-9978
Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
Zachary M. Green, Esq.
JAVERBAUM, WURGAFT, HICKS, KAHN, WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.
1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Ste. 203
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Telephone: (856) 596-4100
Fax: (856) 702-6640
Email: mgalpen@lawjw.com
ARGOS USA: $6.7MM Settlement in McGaffin Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIM McGAFFIN; BECKY McGAFFIN; DANIEL NUNN; and
STEFANIE NUNN, Plaintiffs, v. ARGOS USA, LLC, Defendant, Civil
Action File No. 4:16-cv-00104-RSB-BKE (S.D. Ga.), Judge R. Stan
Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia, Savannah Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement.
The litigation involves new residences in the Savannah, Georgia
area (in both Georgia and South Carolina) where Defendant Argos
delivered a particular concrete mix for use in the slabs of their
homes and on other flatwork on their properties, which concrete is
defective in design and warnings. The Named Plaintiffs/Class
Representatives and the Class Members own residences where this
particular concrete mix was utilized. They contend that the Argos
concrete mixture was neither designed nor intended for slab or
flatwork uses and that the slabs and flatwork suffer from surface
durability and dusting issues. They further contend that Argos
failed to warn builders and concrete finishers that the concrete
mixture delivered to these residences was inappropriate for slab or
flatwork concrete. Argos has vigorously denied liability and
defended against these claims.
In litigating the case for more than four years, the parties have
conducted significant motions practice and engaged in extensive
discovery on class and some merits issues. Following the Court's
certification of a liability class under Rule 23(c)(4) on Aug. 30,
2019, Argos filed a Petition for Interlocutory Appeal, which the
Plaintiffs opposed in the Eleventh Circuit. During the pendency of
that petition to appeal, the Parties reached a proposed settlement.
The Court preliminarily approved the Parties' settlement and
ordered the provision of Notice to the Class on March 24, 2020.
The Court conditionally certified the following Settlement Class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
All Owner(s) of ascertainable Affected Property (any
Residential Property in the State of Georgia or the State of
South Carolina with 868 concrete as Flatwork thereon) on March
5, 2020 with at least one yard of Eligible Concrete (the amount
of 868 concrete delivered to an Affected Property (expressed in
cubic yards) as shown on Argos Delivery Tickets and public
records produced during the Litigation, minus any Ineligible
Concrete).
Defendant Argos will deposit $6.7 million into the Settlement Fund.
From that Fund, an award of $3,507,000 will be distributed to the
Class Counsel as reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
costs and expenses of the litigation, and incentive awards of
$25,000 will be paid to each of the Class Representatives, Jim
McGaffin, Becky McGaffin, Daniel Nunn, and Stefanie Nunn.
The balance of the Settlement Fund, $3,093,000, is to be
distributed proportionally to the participating Settlement Class
Members who timely submitted a Proof of Ownership Form based upon
the amount of Eligible Concrete on such Settlement Class Member's
Affected Property. The Settlement Administrator received 150
timely Proof of Ownership Forms, which reflect a total of 5,656.31
cubic yards of Eligible Concrete.
Therefore, in accordance with the Allocation Amount formula
provided in the Settlement Agreement, the Value Per Cubic Yard of
Eligible Concrete is $3,093,000, divided by 5,656.31, the cubic
yards of Total Eligible Concrete, or $546.82. The amount of
Eligible Concrete was determined for each Affected Property by
review of Argos' delivery tickets. The distribution or "Allocation
Amount" to the participating Settlement Class Members will be equal
to the product of the Value Per Cubic Yard ($546.82) and the amount
of Eligible Concrete on their Affected Property. This will provide
a range of recoveries to the Class Members of $546.82 to
$86,670.97.
Separately from the Settlement Fund, Defendant Argos has agreed to
pay the expenses of the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting,
up to $320,000.
Additionally, Defendant Argos has agreed to substantial injunctive
and other relief, which adds significant non-monetary value to the
Settlement. This includes Argos' agreement to (1) not deliver any
868 mix for residential uses from any of its United States
locations, (2) perform rigorous testing to confirm and document the
strength and durability of any concrete that has a fly ash
percentage greater than 50% for residential flatwork, and (3)
disclose to any purchaser of residential concrete if the percentage
of fly ash in a mix equals or exceeds 45%. Additionally, Argos
expended over $400,000 and hundreds of hours in employee time
remediating or paying for the remediation of many Settlement Class
Members' properties.
Argos USA, LLC's Vice President of Ready Mix, Richard "Rick"
Edwards, affirmed that a reasonable estimate of the value of the
additional non-monetary relief is at least $3 million. The Court
finds this estimate to be credible and, given that no opposition to
this or any other provision of the Settlement has been submitted,
accepts the valuation of the non-monetary relief. The Court
therefore finds the total monetary and non-monetary value of the
Settlement to be $10.02 million.
In consideration of the monetary and non-monetary relief provided
by Defendant Argos, the Class has agreed to release Argos from any
claim arising out of or in any way relating to the 868 concrete,
whether known or unknown, whether asserted or that could have been
asserted, with the exception of medical harm and personal injury
claims, are released. The Release is set forth in full in the
Settlement Agreement and was additionally provided to the Class in
the Class Notice.
The Class Counsel has applied for a percentage-based fee of
$3,507,000, which fee includes $297,759.15 in reasonable costs and
expenses. The fee amounts to 35% of the total settlement value of
$10.02 million, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, and was negotiated by the parties only after the
negotiations regarding the relief to be afforded to the class had
concluded. Additionally, the Class Counsel have applied for
incentive awards of $25,000 to each of the named Plaintiffs/Class
Representatives, which Argos has agreed to pay in addition to the
$6.6 million settlement fund for Class Members. Under prevailing
precedent and the circumstances of the case, these requests are
reasonable, and for the reasons set forth in more detail infra, the
requests will be approved.
The evidence before the Court confirms that all 495 class members
were mailed class notice in accordance with all applicable
requirements. Although 16 Notices were returned as undeliverable,
15 of those were re-issued to a forwarding address based on
information provided by the postal service and through skip-tracing
by the Settlement Administrator.
At the final fairness hearing, Judge Baker finds the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and certifies the Settlement Class.
The Court determined that the requirements of Civil Rule of
Federal Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied.
The Judge also finds that the Class Counsel's request of 35% of the
total settlement value includes reimbursement of costs and
reasonable expenses, which totaled nearly $300,000. The Judge
further notes that while the requested fee is 35% of the total
recovery, after expenses and costs are subtracted, the fee itself
is 32.01%. Therefore, the fee requested is below that of other
approved fee awards and, is reasonable. The Judge also finds that
the substantial role played by the Class Representatives justifies
the requested incentive award.
Accordingly, Judge Baker granted final approval of the Class
Settlement. The Judge appointed (i) Jim McGaffin, Becky McGaffin,
Daniel Nunn, and Stefanie Nunn as the Class Representatives; and
(ii) Pope McGlamry and Moss and Gilmore as the Class Counsel. The
parties are to proceed to fulfill the terms of their Settlement
Agreement.
The Judge also granted (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses in the amount of $3,507,000;
and (ii) their Motion for Incentive Awards for Class
Representatives in the amounts of $25,000 per Class Representative.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Final Order
& Judgment is available at https://bit.ly/2SXk7Rb from Leagle.com.
ATS INC: Butler Slams Misclassification of Drivers
--------------------------------------------------
J. Rubin Butler individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ATS INC., ATS Specialized, Inc.,
Competitive Equipment Leasing and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-01631 (D. Minn., July 24, 2020), seeks compensation,
reimbursement for any and all pay and benefits including but not
limited to past lost earnings, liquidated, statutory and/or
punitive damages as applicable, costs and expenses of this action
and reasonable legal fees, equitable relief, including disgorgement
of profits and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Defendants operate a truckload carrier operating throughout the
United States and Canada. They lease tractor trailers to drivers
along with their services, thus allowing them to misclassify
drivers as independent contractors and pass their business expenses
on to the drivers, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Phone: (612) 594-5999
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
jhashmall@bm.net
- and -
Travis Martindale-Jarvis, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard Swartz, Esq.
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Phone: (856) 685-7420
Fax: (856) 685-7417
BA SPORTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Seeks Blinds' Full & Equal Web Site Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. BA SPORTS NUTRITION, LLC, d/b/a
DRINKBODYARMOR.COM, Case No. 2:20-cv-04849 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 8,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law,
and New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://www.drinkbodyarmor.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by her and other blind or visually-impaired
people. The Defendant's website contains access barriers which
effectively denied the Plaintiff and Class members the ability to
use and enjoy the website the same way sighted individuals do.
These access barriers include: (1) lack of alternative text
(alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers
from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) a
host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or
empty webpage; and (4) numerous navigational buttons without
alt-text features.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, d/b/a drinkbodyarmor.com, is a sports
drink retail company based in Whitestone, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (718) 971-9474
E-mail: Jonathan@ShalomLawNY.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Fisher PA Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Fisher, P.A., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America,
Corp., Fifth Third Bank, Fifth Third Bancorp., First Citizens Bank
& Trust Company, Truist Financial Corp., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Community First Bank, Inc., Community First Bancorp, Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00405 (W.D. N.C., July 21, 2020) seeks
monetary and/or equitable relief, statutory, treble, punitive or
exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including costs of notice,
administration and expert fees and such other legal or equitable
relief, including injunctive or declaratory relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, breach of contract—third party beneficiary and
for violation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security
(CARES) Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.
On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the CARES Act.
This legislation included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to
small businesses and a $500 billion governmental lending program,
administered by the United States Department of Treasury to provide
support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES
Act is the "Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small
businesses with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks
of cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are
administered by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but
funded by private lenders, including the Defendants.
Fisher, P.A. is a CPA firm specializing in business advisory
services, individual and business tax compliance, and outsourced
accounting solutions. It assisted its clients in preparing their
applications for a PPP loan from the Defendants, but the latter has
failed to pay Fisher the agent fees, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
T. Ryan Langley, Esq.
HODGE & LANGLEY LAW FIRM, PC
229 Magnolia St.
Spartanburg, SC 29306
Telephone: (864) 585-3873
Facsimile: (864) 585-6485
Email: rlangley@hodgelawfirm.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
Email: mark@geragos.com
meiselas@geragos.com
- 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
BEARD CLUB: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Beard Club, Inc.
The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. The Beard Club, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04841 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Beard Club provides grooming products at affordable prices
delivered right to men's door.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
CALIFORNIA: Savas Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jonathan Savas, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Savas, et al. v.
CSLEA, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00032-DMS-DEB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of
the suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
California State Law Enforcement Agency is an organizational unit
of the federal government of California.
The appellate case is captioned as Jonathan Savas, et al. v. CSLEA,
et al., Case No. 20-56045, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Lauren Ashby, Ethan Balter, Bella Bardeen, Paul
Carey, Andrew Cox, Christian Espinoza, Carter Fenley, Alec
Fletes, Moses Haase, Frank Harwood, Jon Hernandez, Cole
Heydorff, Jess Hiller, Mackenzie Koepsell, Jennifer
Marshall, Andres Mendoza, Kent Mertins, Yuruan Quinones,
Joshua Raymond, Brad Rollins, Jonathan Savas, Tristan Traub
and Adam Wright's Mediation Questionnaire is due on
October 15, 2020;
-- Appellants Lauren Ashby, Ethan Balter, Bella Bardeen, Paul
Carey, Andrew Cox, Christian Espinoza, Carter Fenley, Alec
Fletes, Moses Haase, Frank Harwood, Jon Hernandez, Cole
Heydorff, Jess Hiller, Mackenzie Koepsell, Jennifer
Marshall, Andres Mendoza, Kent Mertins, Yuruan Quinones,
Joshua Raymond, Brad Rollins, Jonathan Savas, Tristan Traub
and Adam Wright's opening brief is due on December 7, 2020;
-- Appellees Xavier Becerra, California State Law Enforcement
Agency and Betty Yee's answering brief is due on January 6,
2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JONATHAN SAVAS; LAUREN ASHBY; ETHAN BALTER;
BELLA BARDEEN; PAUL CAREY; CHRISTIAN ESPINOZA; CARTER FENLEY; ALEC
FLETES; MOSES HAASE; FRANK HARWOOD; JON HERNANDEZ; COLE HEYDORFF;
JESS HILLER; MACKENZIE KOEPSELL; JENNIFER MARSHALL; ANDRES MENDOZA;
KENT MERTINS; YURUAN QUINONES; JOSHUA RAYMOND; BRAD ROLLINS;
TRISTAN TRAUB; ADAM WRIGHT; and ANDREW COX, as individuals and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Mariah Gondeiro, Esq.
Rebekah Millard, Esq.
FREEDOM FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
Telephone: (406) 781-1485
E-mail: mgondeiro@freedomfoundation.com
rmillard@freedomfoundation.com
Defendants-Appellees CALIFORNIA STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, a
labor organization; BETTY YEE, in her official capacity as State
Controller of California; and XAVIER BECERRA, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of California, are represented by:
Cassandra M. Ferrannini, Esq.
Christopher Kolkey, Esq.
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 444-1000
E-mail: cferrannini@downeybrand.com
ckolkey@downeybrand.com
- and -
Anthony R. Hakl, Esq.
Maureen C. Onyeagbako, Esq.
AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-6065
CARROWS RESTAURANTS: Cota Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Carrows
Restaurants, LLC, Carrows California Family Restaurants, LLC,
Shari's Management Corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01428 (S.D. Cal., July 24, 2020), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.
Carrows is a restaurant group managed and operated by Shari's
Management. It offers the https://www.carrows.com/ website to the
public, offering pancakes, omelets, skillets, toast and waffles,
lunch and dinner items, appetizers, fresh salads, sandwiches,
burgers, steak and chicken, comfort classics, dessert items, ice
cream and root beer floats. Cota is legally blind and claims that
said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Faces Madlinger FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certified Credit &
Collection Bureau. The case is captioned as SCOTT MADLINGER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CERTIFIED
CREDIT & COLLECTION BUREAU, Case No. 3:20-cv-13461-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.,
Sept. 28, 2020).
The nature of the suit is stated as consumer credit filed pursuant
to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Michael A. Shipp.
Certified Credit & Collection Bureau is a debt collection agency
based in Branchburg Township, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone: (201) 507-6300
E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com
CHARTER FOODS: Burris, Thatcher Seek Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Burris and Tasha Thatcher, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Charter Foods, Inc.,
Charter Central, LLC, and Charter Foods North, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-00158 (E.D. Tenn., July 21, 2020), seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties
and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Charter Foods, along with its corporate family of twelve business
entities, including Charter Central and Charter North, are Yum!
Brands franchisees and owner of over three hundred fast food/quick
service industry restaurants operating under Taco Bell, Long John
Silver's, KFC, A&W and/or Pizza Hut restaurants throughout twelve
states. Burris was employed as a Shift Lead from December 2018 to
March 2019 at one of Charter Foods' franchised restaurants.
Thatcher was employed as a Team Member at one of Charter Foods'
franchised restaurants from July 2018 to November 2019. They claim
that they were not paid them overtime for all hours worked over 40
in an individual workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Maha M. Ayesh, Esq.
Jennifer B. Morton, Esq.
JENNIFER MORTON LAW, PLLC
8217 Pickens Gap Road
Knoxville, TN 37920
Tel: (865) 579 0708
Fax: (865) 579-0787
Email: jen@jmortonlaw.com
maha@jmortonlaw.com
- and -
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Dr., Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816) 714-7100
Fax: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
CHARTER FOODS: Davis, Schleufer Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Davis and Niklaus Ryker Schleufer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Charter Foods,
Inc., Charter Central, LLC, and Charter Foods North, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tenn., July 21, 2020), seeks
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Charter Foods, along with its corporate family of twelve business
entities, including Charter Central and Charter North, are Yum!
Brands franchisees and owner of over three hundred fast food/quick
service industry restaurants operating under Taco Bell, Long John
Silver's, KFC, A&W and/or Pizza Hut restaurants throughout twelve
states. Plaintiffs claim that they were not paid them overtime for
all hours worked over 40 in an individual workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Maha M. Ayesh, Esq.
Jennifer B. Morton, Esq.
JENNIFER MORTON LAW, PLLC
8217 Pickens Gap Road
Knoxville, TN 37920
Tel: (865) 579 0708
Fax: (865) 579-0787
Email: jen@jmortonlaw.com
maha@jmortonlaw.com
- and -
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Dr., Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816) 714-7100
Fax: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
CHEVRON USA: Gilcrease Slams Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gilcrease, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00183 (W.D. Tex., July 29, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Gilcrease worked for Chevron as a Logistics Coordinator from
approximately September 2017 until April 2019. Chevron allegedly
misclassified Gilcrease as independent contractor thus denied him
overtime pay for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week.
Chevron is a global energy company where Gilcrease worked in its
Midland, Texas facility, dispatching crew, ordering supplies for
the rig, ordering fuel, ordering pipes and coordinating between
crews and Chevron management. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CITY SANDWHICH: Fernandez Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENITO HERNANDEZ FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. CITY SANDWHICH NYC, LLC (D/B/A CITY
SANDWICH), EAT GOOD FEEL GOOD INC. (D/B/A CITY SANDWICH), KARIMA
ZIZOUNE, and ADAM DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-08414 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated collective action members
applicable minimum hourly rate, failed to pay overtime compensation
at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for
each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week, failed to
provide notice and recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to
provide with an accurate wage statement, failed to reimburse the
costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment to
perform the job, intentionally retained a portion of the
Plaintiff's tips that were received from customers, and repeatedly
failed to pay wages on a timely basis.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the Defendants'
restaurant in New York City from approximately 2014 until September
26, 2020.
City Sandwich NYC, LLC, and Eat Good Feel Good Inc. own, operate or
control a sandwich deli in New York City under the name "City
Sandwich."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com
CLIENT SERVICES: Shtroks Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Nohum Shtroks, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04837 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Client Services, Inc., offers collection services. The Company
provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services,
and customer care solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
jonathan@cml.legal
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces Bribery Case Over Electricity Rate Hike
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence H. Gress, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth Edison Company and John Does
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04405 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2020),
seeks to recover damages for violations of the Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Commonwealth Edison is a public utility that has control of the
delivery of electricity to all residential, business and
governmental customers across Northern Illinois. Gress alleges that
Commonwealth Edison hired connected "lobbyists" at the behest of
Michael J. Madigan, the Speaker of the Illinois House of
Representatives and an elected member of that body, paying bribes
in various forms to induce the Illinois General Assembly to approve
various legislative initiatives that artificially increased
electricity rates. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kent Maynard, Jr., Esq.
KENT MAYNARD & ASSOCIATES LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: (312) 423-6586
Fax: (312) 878-1553
- and -
Michael I. Leonard, Esq.
LEONARDMEYER LLP
120 N. LaSalle Street, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 380-6559
Fax: (312) 264-0671
COSMEDICAL TECH: Hecht Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irene Hecht, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Cosmedical
Technologies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05727 (S.D. N.Y., July
23, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is a skincare company that owns and operates the website
www.cosmedicaltechnologies.com offering features which should allow
all consumers to access the goods and services through delivery
throughout the United States, including New York. Hecht is legally
blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7,
2020, for the fiscal year ended August 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rough v. Costco
Wholesale Corp.
In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to
terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair
business practices.
Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-01340; E.D.
Cal.). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including
civil penalties and attorneys' fees.
In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking
penalties under Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454; Sonoma County
Superior Court).
Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.
The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the
federal action.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.
DANNI PROPERTIES: Shortchanges Driver's Vehicle Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rickie French, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Danni
Properties, LLC and Ed Razban, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00127
(W.D. Ky., July 30, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime hours owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. French
worked as a delivery driver who used his own automobiles to deliver
pizza and other food items to customers. He claims that the
reimbursement rates used to compensate his vehicle expenses are
deficient and render his wages to fall below the federal minimum
wage during some or all workweeks. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 40208
Phone: (502) 636-4333
Email: davids@bsjfirm.com
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN: NES Misclassifies Supervisors, Cayton Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CAYTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT & DAVIDSON COUNTY acting by and
through THE ELECTRIC POWER BOARD, d/b/a NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00859 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for Nashville Electric Service since
June 1987 and was promoted to the position Underground Supervisor
in January 2013 to the present, alleges that the Defendant
classifies him and other Supervisors as exempt under the FLSA.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked over 40
hours in a workweek. But, the Defendant did not compensate the
Plaintiff for hours worked between 40 and 45 in a workweek, except
for when those 5 hours fall on a holiday or emergency work time.
Additionally, the Plaintiff and other Supervisors were compensated
based on the number of hours worked for all of the remaining time
worked through the end of their workweek. As a result, the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Supervisors their lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked in
excess of 40.
Nashville Electric Service distributes energy to more than 370,000
customers in Middle Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
DC INTERNATIONAL: Elliot Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Elliot, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DC International, Inc., Linda Earles and
Russell Earles, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02644 (S.D. Tex., July
28, 2020), seeks to recover back wages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.
DC International is a company owned by Linda Earles and Russell
Earles that provide services for offshore and land based drilling
operations where Elliot worked as a logistics coordinator serving
as an interface between the rig and the base, tracking costs,
rental times and vendor services and maintaining equipment. Elliot
claims to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week
without being paid at a rate not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
Email: me@law.com
curt@mooreandassociates.net
DURANGO FARM: Sanchez Sues Over Agricultural Workers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA SANCHEZ and FIDEL VASQUEZ SANCHEZ, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. DURANGO FARM MANAGEMENT, INC. and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-01435-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal.,
Oct. 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act,
California Labor Code, and California Business and Professions
Code.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime pay, failure to pay for rest periods, failure to
reimburse business expenses for personal vehicle, waiting time
penalties, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as seasonal agricultural
workers in Tulare County and Fresno County, California.
Durango Farm Management, Inc., is an agricultural company that
maintains its executive office in Clovis, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
Liane Katzenstein Ly., Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 990-8300
Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
liane@kingsleykingsley.com
- and –
Mario Martinez, Esq.
Edgar L. Aguilasocho, Esq.
MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, APLC
P.O. Box 1998
Bakersfield, CA 93303
Telephone: (661) 859-1174
Facsimile: (661) 840-6154
E-mail: mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com
EMPLOYEE AWARENESS: Katz Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimile Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EMPLOYEE AWARENESS ASSOCIATION LLC, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-09056 (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 2, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully sent him
messages, which constituted "telephone solicitation" and
"unsolicited advertisement" to his telephone facsimile number
ending in -3052 in an effort to sell or solicit their services
without obtaining his "prior express consent" to receive calls
using a telephone facsimile machine.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' conduct of illegally
contacting the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons have
harmed them by causing them to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone facsimile time for which they have previously paid, and
invading their privacy.
Employee Awareness Association LLC promotes educational
awareness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
ENERGY ARMOR: Daly Sues Over Radioactive Bracelet
-------------------------------------------------
John Daly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Energy Armor, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-04442 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2020), seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for
violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses
Practices Act and unjust enrichment resulting from Energy Armor's
sale of its negative ion bracelets containing Thorium-232, a known
radioactive isotope.
Energy Armor manufactures, advertises, markets, sells and
distributes negative ion products throughout Illinois and the
United States under the brand name "Energy Armor." Daly's most
recent purchase was on June 17, 2020. Daly took a Geiger-Muller
counter reading of his bracelet and reflected approximately 25.2
mrSv per day, whereas a single chest x-rays exposes a recipient to
approximately 100 mrSv of radiation.[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
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
- and -
David B. Levin, Esq.
Steven G. Perry, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: (224) 218-0882, (224) 218-0875
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
steven.perry@toddflaw.com
ENTERTAIN ART: Cruz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Entertain Art, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05812,
(S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such
other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights
Law.
Defendant is a wall art company that owns and operates the website,
www.entertainart.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and ensures the delivery
of the goods and services throughout the United States. Cruz is
legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
EUROSOCKS INTERNATIONAL: Website not Blind-Friendly, Says Cruz
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Eurosocks International, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-05957, (S.D. N.Y., July 31, 2020), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
Eurosocks is a sock company that owns and operates the website,
www.eurosock.com, offering sock for online purchase and ensures its
delivery of throughout the United States. Cruz is legally blind and
claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
EVERGLADES COLLEGE: Hedges Claims Website Not Blind-accessible
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Hedges, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Everglades
College, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05829 (S.D. N.Y., July 27,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Everglades operates an institution of higher learning. Its website
offers prospective students the ability to take courses online, pay
tuition and other costs online, apply for payment plans and apply
for admissions online, as well as information relating to course
offerings, financial aid, cost of tuition, majors, online classes
and other services available online and other general information.
Hedges is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
EYETIQUE INC: Cruz Files Suit Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Eyetique, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05959,
(S.D. N.Y., July 31, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such
other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights
Law.
Defendant is an eyewear and sunglasses company that owns and
operates the website, www.eyetique.com, offering its products for
online purchase and ensures its delivery of throughout the United
States. Cruz is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
FIRST MOTOR: Faces Broshinsky Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHIMON BROSHINSKY, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other
aggrieved employees, and the general public v. FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF
ENCINO, LLC, FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF LOS ANGELES, LLC, ENCINO
MOTORCARS, LLC, and TROPHY AUTOMOTIVE DEALER GROUP, LLC, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV38668 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Private Attorneys General Act.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees appropriate
minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, failure to provide rest and meal breaks,
failure to pay wages upon termination, and failure to provide
compliant wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sales manager at
Encino Motorcars' Mercedes-Benz of Encino car dealership in Encino,
California, from approximately 2010 to May 14, 2020.
First Motor Group of Encino, LLC is a company that operates the car
dealership known as Mercedes-Benz of Encino located at 16721
Ventura Blvd., in Encino, California. First Motor Group of Los
Angeles, LLC is a company that operates the car dealership known as
Mercedes-Benz of Los Angeles located at 1801 South Figueroa Street,
in Los Angeles, California.
Encino Motorcars, LLC is a company that operates the car dealership
known as Mercedes-Benz of Encino located at 16721 Ventura Blvd., in
Encino, California. Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC is a
company that provides human resources, payroll, and other
administrative related functions to car dealerships and service
centers located in and throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
Katrina Castillo Espina, Esq.
Alfred Movsesyan, Esq.
BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 547-5300
Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
katrina@boyamianlaw.com
alfred@boyamianlaw.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Power Consumers Slam Electricity Surcharge
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hudock and Cameo Countertops, Inc., individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
Firstenergy Corp., Firstenergy Service Company, Charles E. Jones,
James F. Pearson, Steven E. Strah, K. Jon Taylor and Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03954 (S.D. Ohio, August 5, 2020), seeks
compensatory damages, recovery on all monies wrongfully obtained
from overdraft fees, enjoinment, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest as well as attorneys' fees resulting from breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and negligence for violations of the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the
Ohio Corrupt Activity Act and civil conspiracy.
FirstEnergy is a public utility holding company which directs and
controls various subsidiary entities organized under the laws of
the State of Ohio with its principal place of business located in
Akron, Ohio. FirstEnergy is involved in the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electricity. FirstEnergy Service
provides legal, financial, and other corporate support services to
affiliated companies, including First Energy.
Plaintiff are electricity consumers in Ohio who have and/or will
have to pay a monthly surcharge for electric service pursuant to
the nuclear plant bailout legislation. They claim that the latter
was passed by bribery. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Telephone: (732) 636-8000
Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com
- and -
Richard Kerger, Esq.
THE KERGER LAW FIRM
4159 N. Holland Sylvania Road
Toledo, OH 43623
Telephone: (419) 255-5990
Email: rkerger@kergerlaw.com
- and -
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Andrew Szot, Esq.
MILLER LAW, LLC
115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
Email: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
aszot@millerlawllc.com
- and -
Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Telephone: (732) 636-8000
Email: kroddy@wilentz.com
FULL CIRCLE HOMES: Paguada Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Paguada, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Full Circle
Homes, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05717 (S.D. N.Y., July 23,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Full Circle Homes is a household goods, cleaning and storage
supplies company that owns and operates the website,
fullcirclehome.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services through delivery
throughout the United States, including New York. Plaintiff is
legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by
the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
FUNNY TIME: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Wiley Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR WILEY, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. FUNNY TIME, INC., and MICHAEL TOMKOVICH, Case No.
0:20-cv-62007-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as chef from November
2019 through March 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that although he and other similarly situated
employees frequently working in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
the Defendants, however, did not pay them at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for hours they worked over 40. At various
time, the Plaintiff was not paid for his work and was never paid
his last required paycheck for approximately two days of work.
Additionally, the Defendant failed to reimburse the Plaintiff for
approximately $630 worth of purchases for the restaurant.
Funny Time, Inc., owns and operates "Gold Club Pompano," a
gentlemen's club in Broward County, Florida. Michael Tomkovich
managed and directed the operations of Funny Time, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven F. Grover, Esq.
FOR STEVEN F. GROVER, PA
3200 SE 12 St.
Pompano Beach, FL 33062
Tel: 954-290-8826
E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com
GETAROUND INC: Faces Kenarki Suit in California Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY KENARKI, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other
aggrieved employees v. GETAROUND, INC., JAMES CORREA, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20SMCV01470 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 8, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime and
double time pay, failure to pay them appropriate minimum wage,
failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to keep accurate
payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to
pay split shift pay, failure to pay all wages earned on time,
failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation,
failure to provide basic information at the time of hiring and when
employment changes occur, failure to reimburse necessary,
business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid
sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a brand ambassador
from February 26, 2018, until December 2019.
Getaround, Inc., is a peer-to-peer carsharing service provider
based in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LA WYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
GOOGLE LLC: Account Holders Slam Personal Data Retention
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Calhoun, Elaine Crespo, Hadiyah Jackson and Claudia
Kindler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Google LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05146 (N.D.
Cal., July 27, 2020), seeks compensatory damages, including
statutory damages, and interest thereon; restraining Google from
installing cookies on its users' computers that could track
computer usage after logging out of Google; reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert
fees and such further relief for violation of the Wiretap Act,
Stored Communications Act, California's Invasion of Privacy Act,
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiffs are Google account holders who accuse Google of
intentionally recording users' personal information when they use
Google's browser, Chrome, regardless of whether a user elects to
"sync" his/her data or whether he/she even has a Google account.
Such data include IP addresses linked to user agents, unique and/or
persistent cookie identifiers including the Client ID, unique
browser identifiers called X-Client data headers and browsing
history. [BN]
Fuentes is represented by:
Lesley Weaver, Esq.
Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 994607
Tel: (415) 445-4003
Fax: (415) 445-4020
Email: lweaver@bfalaw.com
aornelas@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and -
Jay Barnes, Esq.
Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
Jason Jay Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
Eric Johnson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 784-6400
Fax: (212) 213-5949
Email: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
David A. Straite, Esq.
Aaron L. Schwartz, Esq.
KAPLAN, FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
Email: dstraite@kaplanfox.com
aschwartz@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Mario Choi, Esq.
KAPLAN, FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (415) 772-4700
Fax: (415) 772-4707
Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
mchoi@kaplanfox.com
GRANTS PASS, OR: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Blake Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant City of Grants Pass filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Debra Blake, et al. v. City of
Grants Pass, Case No. 1:18-cv-01823-CL, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, Medford.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke ruled for a class-action lawsuit for
the homeless in Grants Pass on August 7th, expanding the current
city camping ordinance to include, "all involuntarily homeless
individuals living in Grants Pass," said court documents that were
filed in U.S. District Court in Medford.
Debra Blake, Gloria Johnson, and John Logan stood up for the
homeless community by suing the City of Grants Pass for trying to,
"run them out of town," said the court documents.
According to the court documents, the three individuals do not have
permanent addresses so they are technically homeless. The
ordinances they referred to involved camping laws and sleeping in
public places. The homeless individuals said in the documents that
the ordinances work against people who are homeless.
The court documents also state that there are not enough homeless
shelters in Grants Pass and the only one that fits the definition
of a "homeless shelter" is Gospel Rescue Mission.
Brian Bouteller from Gospel Rescue Mission is against the lawsuit.
Bouteller said the homeless people that want help are willing to
work and live by rules.
The appellate case is captioned as Debra Blake, et al. v. City of
Grants Pass, Case No. 20-35881, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant City of Grants Pass Mediation Questionnaire is
due on October 15, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 9, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 7, 2020;
-- Appellant City of Grants Pass' opening brief is due on
January 19, 2021;
-- Appellees Debra Blake, Gloria Johnson and John Logan's
answering brief is due on February 19, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees DEBRA BLAKE, GLORIA JOHNSON, and JOHN LOGAN,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Walter Fonseca, Esq.
OREGON LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 429
Grants Pass, OR 97528
Telephone: (541) 476-2154
- and -
Edward Johnson, Esq.
OREGON LAW CENTER
921 S.W. Washington
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 473-8310
Defendant-Appellant CITY OF GRANTS PASS is represented by:
Aaron Paul Hisel, Esq.
Gerald L. Warren, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GERALD WARREN AND ASSOCIATES
901 Capitol Street NE
Salem, OR 97301
Telephone: (503) 480-7250
E-mail: ahisel@geraldwarrenlaw.com
gwarren@geraldwarrenlaw.com
GREAT AMERICAN: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. GREAT
AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., NATIONAL INTERSTATE INS CO., VANLINER
INSURANCE CO., AMERICAN EMPIRE INSURANCE CO., BRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE CO., MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY CO., Case No.
1:20-cv-24094-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to meet the statutory payment and reimbursement
obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors and all others similarly
situated under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the
Social Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants fail to pay for or
reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in
automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by
Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and
downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries'
accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing
agreements authorized under the law. Further, the Defendants have
also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the class members for
accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements
with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those
accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA
Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public.
The Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed
at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff has established various designated series pursuant to
Delaware law in order to maintain various claims recovery
assignments separate from other company assets, and to account for
and associate certain assets with certain particular series.
The Defendants are insurance providers in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Rd., 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
GULF COAST MOTOR: Crawford Suit Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Crawford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gulf Coast Motor Sales, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-00376 (S.D. Ala., July 29, 2018), seeks unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages as mandated by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Gulf Coast Motor Sales, Inc., is registered in Alabama as "Palmer's
Airport Toyota, Inc." and does business as "Palmer's Toyota
Superstore" where Crawford worked as a car detailer. Palmer's
payroll scheme allegedly did not track Crawford's actual hours
worked and failed to pay him for all hours worked in excess of 40
per week at his regular rate of pay. He also claims to be paid
below the mandated minimum wage rate. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON JACKSON
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Tel: (205) 414-7467
Fax: (888) 988-6499
Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net
HARRY'S.COM INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harry's.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Harry's.com, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04850 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Harry's is an American company that manufactures and sells shaving
equipment and men's personal care products via online and retail
channels. The Company is known for their subscription service where
customers receive new razor blades, shaving cream, and other
grooming products by mail.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Faces Ober Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELLE OBER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. HEALTHCARE NATIONAL MARKETING, INC., and SMILEFAITH, INC., Case
No. 8:20-cv-02358 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
violations of the Florida's Private Whistleblower's Statute.
The Plaintiff contends that throughout her employment with the
Defendants, she worked in excess of 40 hours per week, for which
she was not compensated at the overtime rate of not less than one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay. She asserts that the
Defendants took a prohibited retaliatory personnel action against
her in violation of the Florida's Private Whistleblower's Statute
because she objected to, or refused to participate in, an activity,
policy, or practice of the Defendants. Further, the Plaintiff
alleges a breach of contract for unpaid wages after the Defendants
failed and refused to make payment as required by the parties'
agreement.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sales
representative on August 13, 2018. She was later promoted to team
leader, but subsequently returned to her role as sales
representative. Until the end of the Plaintiff's employment with
the Defendants, she was treated as a W-2 employee.
Healthcare National Marketing, Inc. and SmileFaith, Inc. operate a
telemarketing business that sells discount dental insurance in all
50 states across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
E-mail: greg@fgbolaw.com
wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Website Not Disabled User-Friendly, Mercer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Mercer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hersha Hospitality Trust, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-06048 (S.D. N.Y., August 3, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human
Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Hersha Hospitality Trust owns and/or operates "The Rittenhouse" at
210 West Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103. It maintains a
website at https://www.rittenhousehotel.com. Mercer is paraplegic
with no use of her legs, and has limited use of her left arm. She
visited Defendant's website and found that its online reservation
system lacked the disabled accessible features (i.e. ADA-compliant
guest rooms) that would permit disabled individuals to
independently assess whether The Rittenhouse and its available
guestrooms meet their individual accessibility needs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 279-1554
Fax: (516) 213-0339
Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Eisele Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to D. Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KATHLEEN EISELE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case
No. 20CV30398, was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of
Oregon for the County of Multnomah to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon on October 8, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Oregon assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01740-HZ to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and Class members appropriate wages during employment
and upon termination.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., is a home improvement retailer in the
United States, with its principal place of business located in
Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David G. Hosenpud, Esq.
Hank Stebbins, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
Portland, OR 97204-3158
Telephone: (503) 778-2100
Facsimile: (503) 778-2200
E-mail: hosenpudd@lanepowell.com
stebbinsh@lanepowell.com
HOME FINANCING: Faces Repich FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY REPICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HOME FINANCING UNLIMITED, INC., and LEIGH ANN MCCOY,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-01009-LY (W.D. Tex., Oct. 2, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for their alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated non-exempt employees consistently worked over 40 hours per
week, but were not paid overtime premiums for all hours worked over
40 per workweek. Additionally, the Defendant failed to maintain
accurate employee pay records, including the true number of hours
worked per workweek by the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt loan
processor.
Home Financing Unlimited, Inc., provides full service mortgage
banking services throughout Texas. Leigh Ann McCoy is a director
and owner of Home Financing unlimited, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, PC
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberly, TX 78676
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Easley RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Hummingbird Funds, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Lillian Easley v.
Hummingbird Funds, et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00937-KD-N, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the docket of
the case states that the suit was filed pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Blue Trust Loans provides installment loans as an alternative
solution to payday loans.
The appellate case is captioned as Lillian Easley v. Hummingbird
Funds, et al., Case No. 20-13644, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- The appellant's brief is due on or before November 9, 2020;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before October 26, 2020 as to Appellee Lillian Easley.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee LILLIAN EASLEY, and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Steven P. Gregory, Esq.
GREGORY LAW FIRM, PC
505 20th St. N, Ste. 1215
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 799-0380
E-mail: steve@gregorylawfirm.us
- and -
Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
KENNETH J. RIEMER ATTORNEY AT LAW
PO Box 1206
Mobile, AL 36633
Telephone: (251) 432-9212
- and -
Earl Price Underwood, Jr., Esq.
UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC
21 S Section St.
Fairhope, AL 36532-2206
Telephone: (251) 990-5558
E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com
Defendants-Appellants HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS, d.b.a. Blue Trust Loans,
JOHN (RANDY) CADOTTE, WILLIAM TREPANIA, DAYLENE SHARLOW, TWEED
SHUMAN, DON CARLEY, LEE HARDEN, and TRINA STARR are represented
by:
Robert R. Baugh, Esq.
SIROTE & PERMUTT, PC
2311 Highland Ave. S, Ste. 500
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-5100
E-mail: rbaugh@sirote.com
- and -
Erin M. Brewer, Esq.
Ashley Crawford, Esq.
Danielle Ginty, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FIELD LLP
580 California St., Ste. 1500
San Francisco, CA 94101
Telephone: (415) 765-9558
Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
E-mail: erin.brewer@akingump.com
avcrawford@akingump.com
dginty@akingump.com
- and -
John Chas Pierce, Esq.
SIROTE & PERMUTT, PC
1 Saint Louis Ctr., Ste. 1000
Mobile, AL 36602-3925
Telephone: (251) 432-1671
E-mail: jpierce@sirote.com
JAVITCH BLOCK LLC: Smith Files Suit Over Collection Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Khadija Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Javitch Block LLC, Anthony Nicholas Barone
II, Erica Lenore Kravchenko, Defendants, Case No. CV-20-935178
(Ohio Comm. Pleas, July 23, 2019), seeks statutory, punitive and
compensatory damages, injunctive relief to the class restraining
Defendants from filing cases in municipal courts lacking
territorial jurisdiction and from collecting or attempting to
collect debt from the persons subjected to such unlawful conduct,
attorney's fees, costs and expenses and any other relief resulting
from unjust enrichment, negligence, invasion of privacy and for
violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
On August 8, 2018, Defendants, acting as debt collectors, filed a
case against Ms. Smith in the Cleveland Municipal Court alleging a
claim based on an account where, on April 2, 2019, the Municipal
Court of Cleveland entered a default judgment for $559.86 with
interest from the date of judgment at 5% and costs. Defendants were
able to garnish Ms. Smith's personal earnings and in the
furtherance of the garnishment proceedings, they obtained Ms.
Smith's personal and private information and communicated with
third parties, including Ms. Smith's employer, New York Life
Insurance thus causing her private and personal information to be
publicly disseminated through notations in the public online case
information system of the Cleveland Municipal Court. She also
disputes the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of
Cleveland to render such judgment considering that she is from
Parma Height. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Belovich, Esq.
ROBERT S. BELOVICH, ATTORNEY, LLC
8227 Brecksville Rd., Suite 201
Brecksville, OH 44141-1363
Tel: (440) 503-8770
Email: rsb@belovichlaw.com
- and -
Anand N. Misra, Esq.
THE MISRA LAW FIRM, LLC
3659 Green Road, Suite 100
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: (216) 752-3330
Email: misraan@misralaw.com
JOSEPH JOSEPH INC: Paguada Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Paguada, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Joseph
Joseph, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05724 (S.D. N.Y., July 23,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Joseph Joseph, Inc. is a household goods and, cleaning supplies
company that owns and operates the website, us.josephjoseph.com
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services through delivery throughout the United States,
including New York. Paguada is legally blind and claims that said
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Brooks Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible to Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION dba CHASE BANK, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01978-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff, who is a visually-impaired and legally blind person,
who requires screen-reading software to read website content using
her computer, alleges that the Defendant failed to comply with WCAG
2.0/WCAG 2.1 by failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate
its website, https://www.chase.com/, to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by her and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered multiple
access barriers, during her numerous visits to the Defendant's
website, which denied her full and equal access to the facilities,
goods and services offered to the public and made available to the
public on Defendant's website, and deterred her and the Class
members from visiting the Defendant's brick-and-mortar branches.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, dba Chase Bank owns and
operates its website, which provides consumers with access to an
array of products and services including free credit score, branch
and ATM locator, information about credit cards, checking accounts,
savings accounts, CDs, car buying and loans, mortgage, home equity,
investing chase for business, and commercial banking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
KING SPA: Faces Rhee Wage and Hour Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
Soo Young Rhee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Super King Sauna NJ, LLC., Byung Taek Rhee,
Kyung Ja Rhee and Tai Hi Rhee, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-09921,
(D. N.J., August 3, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New
Jersey Wage Payment Law, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Regulations, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own and operate King Spa, Korean Style Spa in Palisades
Park. Rhee claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime
compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants also failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, asserts the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW
163-10 Northern Blvd. Suite 205
Flushing, NY 11358
Tel: (847) 905-6262
Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
KROGER COMPANY: Thornton Consumer Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ROBIN G. THORNTON, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. THE KROGER COMPANY and ALBERTSONS,
Case No. D-202-CV-2020-05018, was removed from the State of New
Mexico Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on October 8,
2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Mexico assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01040-JB-LF to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violation of the New Mexico
Unfair Practices Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment by deceptively advertising imported beef or beef derived
from imported cattle as products of the United States.
The Kroger Company is a company that operates supermarkets and
convenience stores in the United States, with its principal place
of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Albertson's LLC is an American grocery company founded and
headquartered in Boise, Idaho.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Monica R. Garcia, Esq.
BUTT THORNTON & BAEHR PC
PO Box 3170
Albuquerque, NM 87190
E-mail: mrgarcia@btblaw.com
- and –
Nathaniel Lampley, Jr.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
301 E. Fourth Street
Great American Tower, Suite 3500
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 723-4616
Facsimile: (513) 852-7869
E-mail: nlampley@vorys.com
LA DUC FLAMBEAU: Borrowers Sue Over Usurious Lending Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
Lori Fitzgerald, Aaron Fitzgerald, and Kevin Williams, as
individuals and as representatives of the classes, Plaintiffs, v.
Joseph Wildcat Sr., Tribal President of the Lac Du Flambeau Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, in his official and individual
capacities, Nicole Chapman-Reynolds, Jessi Phillips Lorenzo,
Zenresolve, LLC and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00044 (W.D. Va., July 24, 2020), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations laws and various state lending laws resulting in the
collection of unlawful debts.
LDF Holdings is a lender formed by the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized Native American
tribe. They are allegedly involved in a "rent-a-tribe" scheme where
they channel their lending business over the internet through a
Native American tribe to attempt to insulate itself from federal
and state law, thus making them bound by the laws of that
reservation or tribe only, not applicable federal and state law,
thus avoiding state and federal law, with the vast majority of the
revenues going to non-tribal entities. These loans carry
triple-digit usurious interest rates.
Lori Fitzgerald and Aaron Fitzgerald received loans with rates as
high as 750% in violation of both Virginia's licensing and usury
laws, which prohibit a person from charging an annual percentage
rate exceeding 12% without first obtaining a consumer finance
license from the Commonwealth. Williams received loans with
interest rates exceeding 300% in violation of Georgia's licensing
and usury requirements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
LEVEL GROUP USA: Guglielmo Claims Website not Blind-Friendly
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Guglielmo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. The Level
Group USA Corp., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05920 (S.D. N.Y., July
15, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
The Level Group USA is a clothing and accessories company that owns
and operates www.aspesi.com. It offers products and services for
online sale and general delivery to the public. Guglielmo is
legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by
the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
LHC GROUP INC: Health Aides Seek OT Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shana Farmer and Kyna Moore, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LHC Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-03838, (S.D. Ohio, July 30, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Farmer and Moore worked as Home Health Aides for LHC, providing
companionship services, domestic services, home care and other
in-home services for LHC's clients/patients. They seek to recover
unpaid wages one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over 40. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43207
Phone: (614) 949-1181
Fax: (614) 386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
LOGISTICARE INC: Farah Hits Misclassification, Seeks Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamad Farah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Logisticare, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00578 (W.D. Mo., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid time and overtime, improper deductions, and
compensatory and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
Logisticare is a provider of non-emergency medical transportation
services in the United States where Farah was a transportation
provider from approximately 2009 to early 2019. He regularly
transported patients in Missouri and Kansas and claims to be
misclassified as an independent contractor thus denying him the
statutorily required minimum wages and overtime. He is paid based
on medical transportation trips performed where the distance driven
dictates how much they are reimbursed for each trip. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
REAVEY LAW LLC
Livestock Exchange Building
1600 Genessee Suite 303
Kansas City, MO 64102
Tel: (816) 474-6300
Fax: (816) 474-6302
Email: preavey@reaveylaw.com
kkoc@reaveylaw.com
- and -
Jack McInnes, Esq.
Ben Ashworth, Esq.
MCINNES LAW LLC
1900 West 75th Street, Suite 220
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 220-2488
Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
LT. COL. HAMILTON: Dismissal of Rodrigues Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN RODRIGUES v. LT. COL.
HAMILTON, ET AL., Case No. 7:20-cv-00338 (W.D.Va.), Defendants
Ball, Bowles, Bradburn, T. Brooks, C. Hamilton, LaFave, C. Lawson,
Smallwood have asked the Court to dismiss the case or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment.
The Plaintiff had asked the Court for an order certifying the case
as a class action. Mr. Rodrigues argued that the following
individuals are similarly situated because they have experienced
same beating and torture:
-- In Harrell v. Lt. Ealy, Case No. 7:20-cv-399, Mr. Harrell
alleges 18 hours torture. He contends that he was placed
on a concrete slab in 4-point restraint resulting in a
broken ribs and nerve damage.
-- In Collum v. Sizemore, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-403, the
Plaintiff asserts claim for fear of retaliatory beatings
pursuing for First Amendment Rights to suitable writing
materials, reading books, newspapers, and magazines.
In an August decision, Senior Judge Norman K. Moon denied the
Motion to Certify Class.[CC]
LYFT INC: Faces Smith TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04805 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all consumers in the United
States, who have received unsolicited and unconsented-to commercial
text messages to their mobile phones from the Defendant in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that on October 1, 2020, she received a text
from the Defendant promoting its ridesharing and other
transportation services. She asserts that she had no association at
all with the Defendant and that she did not give the Defendant her
contact information or her consent to be sent automated text
messages.
The Defendant directly or vicariously violated the TCPA when it
used an automated telephone texting system to send unsolicited and
unauthorized marketing texts to the cellular phones of the
Plaintiff and class members, the suit says.
Lyft, Inc., is a company that develops and markets a mobile app
offering ridesharing and other transportation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
MARCARELLI DESIGN: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK JOSE RAMIREZ, an individual v. MARCARELLI DESIGN INC., a
California corporation, CAMERON MARCARELLI an individual, and DOES
1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV36898 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 25, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful
labor and business practices in violation of the California Labor
Code, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California
Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants (1) failed to pay his
accrued overtime compensation; (2) failed to provide meal breaks or
premium pay for missed meal breaks; (3) failed to provide rest
periods or premium pay for missed rest periods; (4) failed to
provide timely and accurate wage and hour statements; (5) failed to
pay him earned wages in a timely manner upon termination; (6)
violated California's Unfair Competition Law; and (7) are liable
for penalties pursuant to the California's Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in March 2019 as a
general laborer performing construction and maintenance services at
various worksites that he was assigned to until his termination on
January 6, 2020.
Marcarelli Design Inc. is a construction company operating in the
County of Los Angeles in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pouya B. Chami, Esq.
Michael Matta, Esq.
CHAMI LAW, PC
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 484-5001
Facsimile: (310) 484-5002
E-mail: pchami@chamilaw.com
mmatta@chamilaw.com
MDL 1871: Court Denies GSK's Bid to Sanction Allied Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 07-md-1871, Civil Action No. 09-730
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied GlaxoSmithKline
("GSK")'s motion for sanctions against the counsel for Plaintiff
Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, attorneys James Dugan and
Art Sadin.
In 2009, Allied Services filed the lawsuit against GSK alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO") and various state consumer laws in connection with its
marketing of Avandia. It was one of four actions that were
collectively referred to as Third-Party Payor ("TPP") cases. The
actions were filed into the Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and
Products Liability Multi-District Litigation ("MDL").
Allied is an employee welfare benefit plan as defined by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that provides
medical coverage, including prescription drug coverage, to its
members and their dependents. In 2009, Allied filed a case into
the MDL alleging that GSK violated RICO and various state consumer
protection laws in connection with its marketing of Avandia. In
particular, Allied alleged that GSK concealed cardiovascular risks
associated with Avandia use, and that but for the concealment, it
would not have included Avandia on their formularies and would not
have paid for Avandia prescriptions.
After years of litigation, Allied moved to voluntarily dismiss its
claims.
GSK argues that Allied's counsel should be sanctioned for failing
to conduct an adequate investigation before filing suit and for
unreasonably prolonging the litigation for more than seven years
without evidence to support its claims. The original motion and
briefing made little effort to distinguish between party and the
counsel, and GSK's decision not to re-brief the issues pertinent to
the remaining targeted attorneys had made the "individualized
analysis" required for the imposition of sanctions challenging.
At the heart of GSK's motion is the assertion that Allied had
alleged that GSK made misrepresentations about Avandia directly to
Allied. According to GSK, Allied never produced any evidence of
direct misrepresentations, and eventually chose to dismiss the case
when the time came to provide evidence it had always lacked. GSK
argues that counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation
before filing suit and then continued this failure throughout the
litigation, prolonging it unnecessarily.
After considering all of the circumstances of the TPP litigation
within the Avandia MDL, although there are certainly bases for
criticizing the conduct of Allied's counsel, Judge Rufe concludes
that GSK has not articulated a clear legal basis for sanctioning
Dugan and Sadin after being given every opportunity to do so.
Because GSK has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that
Allied's counsel acted in bad faith, she will deny the motion for
sanctions. An appropriate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/371I1Dn from Leagle.com.
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Kristal Sues Over 35% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE KRISTAL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MESOBLAST LIMITED, SILVIU ITESCU, and JOSH MUNTNER,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08430 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2020), seeks to recover
compensatory damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Mesoblast
securities between April 16, 2019, and October 1, 2020, inclusive.
In early 2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its
Biologics License Application with the Food and Drug Administration
to secure marketing authorization to commercialize remestemcel-L
for children with steroid refractory acute graft versus host
disease ("aGVHD").
On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting to be held on August 13,
2020. Therein, the FDA stated that Mesoblast provided post hoc
analyses of other studies "to further establish the appropriateness
of 45% as the null Day-28 ORR" for its primary endpoint.
On October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received a
Complete Response Letter from the FDA regarding its marketing
application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD in
pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended that
the Company "conduct at least one additional randomized, controlled
study in adults and/or children to provide further evidence of the
effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD." The CRL also
"identified a need for further scientific rationale to demonstrate
the relationship of potency measurements to the product's biologic
activity."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.56, or 35%, to
close at $12.03 per share on October 2, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
According to the complaint, throughout the class period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that comparative
analyses between Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three historical
studies did not support the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for
steroid refractory aGVHD due to design differences between the four
studies; (2) that, as a result, the FDA was reasonably likely to
require further clinical studies; (3) that, as a result, the
commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be
delayed; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Mesoblast Limited is an Australian-based regenerative medicine
company. It seeks to provide treatments for inflammatory ailments,
cardiovascular disease and back pain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
MICHIGAN: Otworth Sues Over Unlawful COVID-19 Executive Orders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Otworth, in his individual capacity, and on behalf of all
citizens of the State of Michigan similarly situated v. Gretchen
Whitmer, in her official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-00944-PLM-RSK
(W.D. Mich., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought by the Plaintiff for
deprivation of his rights secured by the U.S. Constitution against
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Defendant Gretchen Whitmer is sued in her official capacity as the
current Governor of Michigan.
According to the complaint, on March 24, 2020, Ms. Whitmer has
issued a proclamation declaring that a disaster existed within
Michigan brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. She issued a series of
executive orders that required the citizens of Michigan to stay
home until May 28, 2020, pursuant to the authority granted her
under the Michigan Emergency Management Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the executive order, inter alia, limits
him and all persons similarly situated, constitutionally protected
freedoms in that it, inter alia, restricted their movement to leave
their homes and restricted the activities in which they might
engage. He added that by definition within the plan of the Michigan
Department of Public Health, such actions of Ms. Whitmer
constituted a quarantine.
The Plaintiff's interests, as well as the interests of every other
similarly situated citizen of Michigan, has a right to insist Ms.
Whitmer not to issue executive orders regarding matters which the
Legislature exclusively granted the MDPH supreme authority, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff contends that he and all citizens similarly situated,
are being irreparably harmed each and every day they continue to be
restricted to their home, and limited in their activities, except
to do those things Ms. Whitmer has unilaterally authorized them
they could do.
The Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, appears pro se.[BN]
MIJ INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Ford FLSA Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA FORD, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
individuals v. MIJ, INC. d/b/a WIGGLES GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Case No.
2:20-cv-00353 (N.D. Ind., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged unlawful class-wide misclassification of
all exotic dancers employees in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exotic dancer
from 2006 through March 2019.
The Plaintiff contends that she and all other exotic dancers at
Wiggles were misclassified by the Defendant as independent
contractors. As a result, she asserts, the Defendant did not pay
them their wages or any kind of compensation for work duties they
performed. Additionally, the Defendant required them to pay Wiggles
or its ownership or management a house fee for each shift they
worked, and regularly and customarily kept and/or assigned a
portion of the tips and gratuities they received from customers to
Defendant's ownership, management, and other non-customarily tipped
employees.
MIJ, Inc., operates a bar and lounge business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Misch, Esq.
Bradley P. Colborn, Esq.
ANDERSON AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C.
131 South Taylor Street
South Bend, IN 46601
Tel: (574) 288-1510
Fax: (574) 288-1650
E-mail: misch@aaklaw.com
colborn@aaklaw.com
- and –
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Parents Sue Over Closure of Schools
------------------------------------------------------
John and Kimberly Beahn, individually and as parents and next
friends of P.B., M.B., and B.B., minors, Clara I. Obermeier,
individually and as parent and next friend of A.L. and J.W.,
minors, Miriam Roth, individually and as parent and next friend of
Z.R. and I.R., minors, James and Gem Lawson, individually and as
parent and next friend of G.L., a minor, Joshua and Penny Bortnick,
individually and as parents and next friends of J.B., a minor,
Christopher and Meagan Rizzo, individually and as parents and next
friends of A.R., a minor, Brookewood School, Inc., Avalon School,
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Travis A. Gayles and Marc Elrich, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-02239 (D. Md., August 3, 2020) seeks temporary,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and to enjoin
Defendants from closing religious and private schools to in-person
learning pursuant to the First Amendment (Free Exercise of
Religion, Freedom of Association and Right of Assembly).
Elrich is the County Executive for Montgomery County while Gayles
is the Health Officer for Montgomery County. Plaintiffs are parents
and schools who alleged that Montgomery County unilaterally
announced that all religious and other private schools in the
Montgomery County are "prohibited from physically re-opening for
in-person instruction through October 1, 2020."
They claim the Health Officer had no authority to issue such an
order. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
Alyse L. Prawde, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD, AND LAAKE, P.A.
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Phone: (301) 220-2200
Fax: (240) 553-1761
Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
aprawde@jgllaw.com
MORTON COUNTY, ND: Appeals Decision in Dundon Suit to 8th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kyle Kirchmeier, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Vanessa Dundon, et al. v.
Kyle Kirchmeier, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00406-DMT, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of North Dakota, Western.
Kyle Kirchmeier is sued in his capacity as the Sheriff of Morton
County, North Dakota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
seek damages and injunctive relief arising from curtailment of
their First and Fourth Amendment rights.
On November 20, 2016, the Plaintiffs gathered to pray and to
peacefully protest the continued construction of Dakota Access
Pipeline and the ongoing blockage of the public highway 1806.
Police officers from the Morton County Sheriff's Department, City
of Mandan Police Department and Stutsman County Sheriff's
Department deployed teargas and fired water cannons to disperse
them.
The appellate case is captioned as Vanessa Dundon, et al. v. Kyle
Kirchmeier, et al., Case No. 20-3106, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appendix is due on November 17, 2020;
-- Brief of Appellant Chad Kaiser, Kyle Kirchmeier and Jason
Ziegler is due on November 17, 2020; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Vanessa Dundon, Jade Kalikolehuaokal Wool,
Crystal Wilson, David Demo, Guy Dullknife, III, Mariah Marie Bruce,
Frank Finan, Israel Hoagland-Lynn, and Noah Michael Treanor, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, are
represented by:
Janine L. Hoft, Esq.
PEOPLE'S LAW OFFICE
1180 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60642
Telephone: (773) 235-00710
- and -
Rachel Lederman, Esq.
558 Capp Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: (415) 282-9300
E-mail: rachel@bllaw.info
- and -
Melinda Power, Esq.
WEST TOWN LAW OFFICE
2502 W. Division Street
Chicago, IL 60622
Telephone: (773) 278-6706
Facsimile: (773) 278-0635
E-mail: melindapower@comcast.net
- and -
Natali Segovia, Esq.
WATER PROTECTOR LEGAL COLLECTIVE
P.O. Box 37065
Albuquerque, NM 87176
Telephone: (602) 796-7034
- and -
Mara E. Verheyden-Hilliard, Esq.
PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND
617 Florida Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 232-1180
Defendants-Appellants Kyle Kirchmeier, Jason Ziegler, Chad Kaiser,
Morton County, City of Mandan, and Stutsman County are represented
by:
Randall J. Bakke, Esq.
Shawn A. Grinolds, Esq.
Bradley Neuman Wiederholt, Esq.
BAKKE & GRINOLDS
300 W. Century Avenue
P.O. Box 4247
Bismarck, ND 58502-4247
Telephone: (701) 751-8188
MURRAYS CHEESE: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murrays Cheese LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Murrays Cheese LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08411 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Murray's Cheese is an artisanal cheese and specialty foods retailer
and wholesaler based in Greenwich Village in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
NATIONAL CONTINENTAL: MSP Sues Over Unreimbursed Medical Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and MAO-MSO
RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI, a segregated series of MAO-MSO II
LLC v. NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SELECT
INSURANCE COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24136-KMW (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Medicare
Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act and for
breach of contract.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to make
appropriate and timely reimbursement of conditional payments for
accident-related medical expenses of the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated Medicare enrollees. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the cost of the accident-related medical
expenses has been borne by Medicare Advantage Organizations and
Medicare Advantage Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust
Funds. The Defendants' obligation to pay for accident-related
medical expenses on behalf of enrollees is primary relative to
Medicare's obligation, which is secondary.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered an injury-in-fact
due to the Defendants' failure to meet their statutory payment and
reimbursement obligations.
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC is a series limited liability
company with a principal place of business located at 2701 S.
LeJeune Road, in Coral Gables, Florida. MSPA Claims 1, LLC is a
limited liability company, with its principal place of business at
2701 S. LeJeune Road, in Coral Gables, Florida.
MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, Series PMPI, a segregated series of
MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 45 Legion Drive in
Cresskill, New Jersey. National Continental Insurance Company is a
company that issues property and casualty policies, with its
principal place of business at 1 Corporate Drive, in Cleveland,
Ohio. Progressive Direct Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, in Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, in Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive American Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, in Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive Select Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, in Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive Express Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, in Cleveland,
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
Michael O. Mena, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com
serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and –
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
Eduardo Bertran Esq.
J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE
4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 661-2021
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
alfred@armaslaw.com
- and –
Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2505
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (312) 593-3354
Facsimile: (504) 355-0089
E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com
NATIONS RECOVERY: Class Settlement in Esposito Suit Gets Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE F. ESPOSITO, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONS RECOVERY
CENTER, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-2089 (VLB) (D.
Conn.), Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut granted the Parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of their class settlement agreement.
Plaintiff Esposito, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, commenced the action against Nations Recovery
for allegedly sending debt collection letters which included false
and deceptive language concerning the accrual of interest in
violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA").
The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly seek preliminary approval
of their class settlement agreement on behalf of the following
class:
All Connecticut residents who, within one year after Dec. 20,
2017, were sent letters by Nations similar to that attached as
Exhibit B to the Complaint. 'Similar' letters will include all
letters including the words 'interest continues to accrue on
this judgment,' when the underlying judgment did not, in fact,
award post judgment interest.
The Plaintiff is a Connecticut resident and consumer. The
Defendant is a corporation doing business in Connecticut.
The Defendant regularly attempts to collect on debts primarily
incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. On Jan. 3,
2018, it sent the Plaintiff a letter which allegedly violated the
FDCPA. The Plaintiff asserts that a debt collector may not add
post-judgment interest if it has not been awarded by a court, and
therefore to state that an amount certain is owing, which includes
interest not awarded by a court or interest at a rate not awarded
by a court, violates 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA.
After the Plaintiff initiated the action, formal discovery
commenced and the parties conducted their own review of the matter
and eventually decided it was in their best interest to settle the
claims. The Parties jointly seek preliminary approval of their
class settlement agreement.
The proposed class settlement agreement contemplates liability for
the letter's allegedly incorrect invocation of post-judgment
interest under the FDCPA, but with Nations denying any wrongdoing
and any liability whatsoever (including under the FDCPA) with
respect to Esposito or the Class.
On review, the Court that all of the prerequisites under Rule 23(a)
are satisfied and certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is warranted.
Judge Bryant therefore certified the class articulated; appointed
Joanne S. Faulkner and Eric L. Foster as the Class Counsel; and
appointed Mr. Esposito as the representative of the Settlement
Class. The Judge also preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement agreement, and approved the mailing of the notice and
claim form to the Settlement Class members.
A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the
settlement agreement will take place on Oct. 29, 2020 at 4:00 p.m.,
at 450 Main Street, Courtroom Three. At the hearing, the Court
will also determine whether to grant final approval to the
settlement agreement and whether to grant the Parties' requests for
fees and expenses by the Class Counsel.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/34XVh9u from Leagle.com.
NEAR NORTH HEALTH: Ray Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
------------------------------------------------------------------
Martrina Ray, James Jones and Clyde Ruff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Near North
Health Service Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04536 (N.D.
Ill., August 3, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wage compensation,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties resulting from
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage
Law and Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act.
Near North is a health service corporation with ten locations in
Chicago and provides primary health care, including medical
services, social services and nutrition education to low-income
communities throughout the City of Chicago. Ray worked in a
non-exempt position as a licensed practical nurse for Near North at
one of its Chicago, Illinois facilities located in Cook County. Ray
claims compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty in a
given work week at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul D. Geiger, Esq.
Ronald C. Dahms, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. GEIGER
540 W. Frontage Road, Suite 3020
Northfield, IL 60093
Tel: (773) 410-0841
NESTED BEAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Monegro Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NESTED BEAN, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08365-JPC
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff made occasional visits to
the Defendant's Web site, https://www.nestedbean.com/, the last
occurring in September 2020, to make a purchase. Despite his
efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Web site's lack
of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively
barred him from being able to determine what specific products were
offered for sale.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination, thus, he seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that its Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Nested Bean, Inc., is a baby products manufacturer company that
owns and operates the Web site, offering features, which should
allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which the
Company ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United
States, including New York State.[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
NEWPOINT FRANCHISOR: Elatt Slams Illegal SMS Ads
------------------------------------------------
Michael Elatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Newpoint Franchisor, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-06871 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2020), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Newpoint Franchisor operates as "Homes & Land," a national real
estate advertising and magazine platform. To promote its services,
it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer.
Elatt is not its customer and did not give express consent to
receive such texts, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: nicholas@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
- and -
Michael R. Parker, Esq.
Kevin Cole, Esq.
PARKER COLE, P.C.
6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207
West Hills, CA 91307
Telephone: (818) 292-8800
E-Mail: michael@parkercolelaw.com
kevin@parkercolelaw.com
NY ROMANTICOS: Guevara Seeks Overtime Pay, Denied Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephania Ruiz Guevara, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NY Romanticos Inc., Kaz Enterprises, Inc.,
Flamingo Tavern Corp., Maria Dutan, Eduardo Valentin and Casimiro
Villa, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03368, (E.D. N.Y. July 27, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, withheld tips,
unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendants collectively own and operate a group of bars in New York
namely, "Romanticos," "Club Evolution" and Friend's Tavern. Guevara
worked as a server at Romanticos. She claims to have generally
worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime pay for hours
in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours
premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. She also claims to have
never received wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
OHIO: Courts Grants Class Certification in Community Refugee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edmund Sargus Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio granted Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned COMMUNITY REFUGEE AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REGISTRAR, OHIO BUREAU
OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-1189. (S.D. Ohio).
The Supplemental Motion was filed by Plaintiffs Badreldin Rahouma
(Rahouma), Gumaa Ismail Yahya Ibrahim (Ibrahim), and Community
Refugee and Immigration Services (CRIS).
Plaintiffs allege that a policy of the Ohio Bureau of Motor
Vehicles (BMV) Registrar denies driver's licenses to individuals
who hold a valid refugee admission document (Form I-94) but were
admitted to the United States as refugees more than two years ago.
Plaintiffs assert claims under the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for
a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Court finds that the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequate representation requirements of Civil Rule of Federal
Procedure 23(a) have been satisfied in the case.
In sum, the Court grants the Motion for Class Certification. The
class under Rule 23(b)(2) consists of all refugees residing in Ohio
who possess a valid refugee I-94 document that is more than two
years old and have not yet adjusted their status to that of a
lawful permanent resident.
The Court further designates Advocates for Basic Legal Equality,
Inc. and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP as class counsel.
Summary Judgment Motion
Plaintiffs further argue the Ohio BMV's Policy is preempted by
federal law and thus, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Plaintiffs argue the Policy is preempted because it creates
an impermissible subclass of refugees, which unlawfully encroaches
on the federal government's exclusive right to regulate
immigration. Plaintiffs argue the impermissible class created by
the policy consists of individuals who hold refugee status but were
issued their I-94 more than two years ago.
Judge Sargus notes that since the Court's decision denying
Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Registrar has provided no record
evidence to support any argument to the contrary. In contrast,
Plaintiffs provide evidence that this policy is preempted.
Plaintiffs point out that Defendant testified, in its Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition, that "other than current
BMV policy" there would be no reason not to issue a license to an
individual who provided a I-94 document that was greater than two
years old. This effectively concedes that the REAL ID Act does not
require the I-94 to be issued within the last two years in order to
show presence.
There is no genuine issue of material fact, the Court notes.
Plaintiffs are thus entitled to judgment as a matter of law and
their motion for summary judgment is granted, Judge Sargus rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's February 20, 2020 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ua4g3gv from
Leagle.com
Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center, Plaintiff, represented by
Emily Montgomery Brown , Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.,
525 Jefferson Ave, Suite 300, Toledo, OH 43604, Ana P. Crawford -
acrawford@porterwright.com - Porter Wright Morris & Arthur,
Caroline Gentry - cgentry@porterwright.com - Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur, David P. Shouvlin - dshouvlin@porterwright.com - Porter
Wright Morris & Arthur, Eugenio Mollo, Jr. , Kathleen Caroline
Kersh , Advocates for Basic Legal Equality Inc. & Mark R. Heller ,
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. , 525 Jefferson Ave, Suite
300, Toledo, OH 43604
Erlin Lorena Rodriguez Enamorado, individually and as next friend
of J.G.R., Maria Monjaraz, individually and as next friend of A.M.
& Maria Cabrera, individually and as next friend of K.I.A.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Emily Montgomery Brown , Advocates for
Basic Legal Equality, Inc., Ana P. Crawford , Porter Wright Morris
& Arthur, David P. Shouvlin , Porter Wright Morris & Arthur,
Eugenio Mollo, Jr. , Kathleen Caroline Kersh , Advocates for Basic
Legal Equality Inc. & Mark R. Heller , Advocates for Basic Legal
Equality, Inc.
Registrar, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Defendant, represented by
Hilary R. Damaser, Ohio Attorney General, Brian R. Honen , Ohio
Attorney General's Office, Cory J. Goe , Ohio Attorney General's
Office & Jahan S. Karamali , Ohio Attorney General's Office.
ORIGINAL ESPINAL: Cuauhtenco Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Cuauhtenco, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Original Espinal Deli II Corp., Edwin
Espinal and Teofilo Espinal, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03282 (E.D.
N.Y., July 22, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and redress for Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control an American Deli, located in
Queens, NY under the name "The Original Espinal Deli 2" where
Cuauhtenco was employed as a sandwich maker. He claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that
they worked. The Plaintiff alleges that Original Espinal failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight
rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
PHH MORTGAGE: Borrowers Sues Over Unauthorized Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Forrest, Larry Rockwell II, Thomas Lamoureux, and Susana
Bonadona, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. PHH Mortgage Corporation and ACI Worldwide Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00323 (D. R.I., July 24, 2020), seeks
actual and statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, including
interest thereon and all such further and other relief pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rhode Island Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
ACI partnered with various businesses, including PHH, to permit and
effectuate bill payments over the telephone and the internet. When
Plaintiffs attempted to remit payments for their respective loans
over the telephone or via the internet, PHH accepted and otherwise
facilitated these payments through ACI's "Speedpay" service which
incurred a fee in connection with their use of this service. Under
both the FDCPA and RIFDCPA, debt collectors, such as ACI and PHH,
are prohibited from charging debtors any amounts beyond their
principal obligations, unless such additional amounts are expressly
authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law,
asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John B. Ennis, Esq.
1200 Reservoir Avenue
Cranston, RI 02920
Telephone: (401) 943-9230
Facsimile: (401)679-0035
Email: Jbelaw75@gmail.com
- and -
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
DANNLAW
P.O. Box 6031040
Cleveland, OH 44103
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
Email: mdann@dannlaw.com
notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Sharon Harris, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
PJ CLEVELAND: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Dillon Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Dillon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PJ Cleveland, LLC and Nikolas Silea,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01730 (N.D. Ohio, August
5, 2020), seeks to recover their unpaid overtime as well as other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants own and operate numerous Papa John's franchise stores
where Dillon worked as a delivery driver. She used her own vehicle
to deliver pizzas and claims that the reimbursement rates were
unreasonably low thus causing their net wages to fall below the
federal minimum wage.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson Beridon, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
2315 Walnut St. Suite 2315
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 31-2224
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: alysonb@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
RESULTS COMPANIES: Shortchanged Agents' Pay, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Fields-Nelson and Wonder Wallace, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Results
Companies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00585, (E.D. Tex., July
30, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages,
interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal
Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.
Defendant is an international business processing outsourcing
services provider that manages and operates call centers in more
than 28 worldwide locations. Fields-Nelson and Wallace were
employed by Results as hourly-paid Customer Service
Representatives/Customer Advocates at its Paris and Palestine,
Texas locations. They claim overtime for post-shift and pre-shift
activities that were not captured by their time-keeping system.
They also claim to work through their breaks and were not
compensated. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 251-4157
Fax: (214) 261-5159
Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
REXAHN PHARMA: Stahlman Sues Over Ocuphire Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Stahlman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Peter C. Brandt, Charles Beever, Kwang Soo Cheong, Ben Gil Price,
Richard J. Rodgers, Lara S. Sullivan and Douglas J. Swirsky,
Defendants, Case No. 2020-0639 (D. Del., July 31, 2020), seeks to
enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger between Rexahn
and Ocuphire Pharma, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants
consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pursuant to the merger agreement, Rexahn's then-current
stockholders would own approximately 14.3% of the combined
company's common stock, and the former Ocuphire security holders
would own approximately 85.7% of the combined company's common
stock, in each case calculated on a fully-diluted basis, assuming
Rexahn's net cash balance at closing is between $3.2 million and
$6.0 million.
Stahlman claims that the merger documents failed to include
financial projections for Rexahn and Ocuphire, the valuation
analyses performed by Rexahn's financial advisor, Oppenheimer and
Co. Inc., in support of its fairness opinion and the process
leading to the Proposed Transaction.
Rexahn is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
therapies to improve patient outcomes in cancers that are difficult
to treat. Its common stock is traded on NASDAQ under the ticker
symbol "REXN."
Ocuphire is a clinical-stage ophthalmic biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing therapies for the
treatment of several eye disorders.
Stahlman is represented by:
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 778-4000
Email: rernst@oelegal.com
- and -
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
LEVI &KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
Email: denright@zlk.com
etripodi@zlk.com
RHMT LLC: Draper Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------
Daniel Draper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RHMT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01423
(D. Nev., July 31, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
RHMT, LLC. operates as The Apothecarium Dispensary. Draper claims
that he was never a customer yet he still received marketing text
campaigns from RHMT. [BN]
American Directions is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6069 South Fort Apache Rd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: gustavo @kazlg.com
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Riviera Beach Sues Over 19% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., RICHARD FAIN, JASON LIBERTY, and
MICHAEL BAYLEY, Case No. 1:20-cv-24111 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2020),
seeks to recover compensatory damages under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and
misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.
The securities class action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean securities from February 4,
2020, through March 17, 2020, both dates inclusive.
According to the complaint, during the class period, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's decrease in bookings
outside China, and its inadequate policies and procedures to
prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships. As a result of these
misrepresentations, the Defendants caused Royal Caribbean stock to
trade at artificially high prices during the class period.
As the scope of the impact COVID-19 had on the Company's overall
bookings and the inability of Royal Caribbean to prevent the virus'
spread on its ships was revealed through a series of corrective
disclosures, the price of Royal Caribbean stock declined
significantly and reflected the true value of the Company's stock.
The most recent disclosure was on March 16, 2020, when the Company
revealed that its global operations could be suspended longer than
anticipated, announcing the cancellations of two additional cruises
throughout April and into May. On this news, Royal Caribbean stock
dropped more than 7 percent over the following trading session.
Further, the Plaintiff contends, the financial impact of the
Company's false and misleading statements and/or omissions was
revealed as analysts downgraded Royal Caribbean's stock and slashed
their price targets. For example, on March 18, 2020, before trading
opened, Stifel Nicolaus cut its one-year price target on Royal
Caribbean from $161 to $40. On this news, Royal Caribbean stock
dropped more than 19 percent over the following trading session.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. is an American global cruise holding
company incorporated in Liberia and based in Miami, Florida. It is
the world's second-largest cruise line operator, after Carnival
Corporation & PLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Lester Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
ebelfi@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
RX VALET: Faces Gallion TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE GALLION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RX VALET, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-09057 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their alleged negligent and
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sent telemarketing text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
-6963 on December 15, 2019. The Plaintiff asserts that he never
provided any consent to the Defendants to send unwanted text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number that was
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for over 30 days
prior to the Defendants' initial message.
Despite the Plaintiff's effort in replying "STOP" to the
Defendants' text messages, the Defendants continued to send
unwanted text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
via an "automatic telephone dialing system," according to the
complaint.
RX Valet, LLC, is a pharmaceutical discount marketer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
SAFETY HOLDINGS: Moulvi Sues Over Illegal Background Check
----------------------------------------------------------
Tasmia Moulvi, on behalf of herself and all individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Safety Holdings, Inc., HireRight, LLC and
Richard D. Holcomb, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of
the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00595 (E.D. Va., August 3, 2020), seeks statutory and
punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest and such other relief as required by the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Driver Privacy Protection
Act of 1994.
Safety Holdings, Inc., doing business as "Samba Safety" gathers,
holds and disseminates information for driving records of
individuals directly to companies or to third party companies.
HireRight, Inc. is a screening services company.
Moulvi was issued a misdemeanor summons for alleged possession of a
fictitious Florida driver's license and being under the influence
of alcohol in a public place while underage. The latter was
dismissed while she pleaded guilty to the former charge. She filed
a request with the Franklin County Municipal Court sealing from
private use of all records relating to her offenses.
In line with her job application, she accused Safety Holdings, Inc.
and HireRight, LLC of acquiring such records from the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles despite being expunged by an Ohio
court and that she was deserving of a clean slate. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 273-7770
Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
Email: matt@clalegal.com
- and -
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey Nash, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
Scott A. Surovell, Esquire, Esq.
SUROVELL ISAACS & LEVY PLC
4010 University Drive, Suite 200
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 277-9750
Facsimile: (703) 591-9285
E-mail: SSurovell@SurovellFirm.com
SAN BERNARDINO: Social Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Cecily Fernandez and Kenyada Wagoner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. County of San
Bernardino and Does 1–10, inclusive. Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01555, (C.D. Cal., August 5, 2020) seeks damages in the
amount of all unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, plus interest
and costs, legal and equitable relief, attorney fees' and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The County of San Bernardino is a legal subdivision of the State of
California where Plaintiffs are social workers in Child and Family
Services. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs are usually
"on-call" and these are mostly uncompensated. They performed work
that could not be completed in forty hours per week and are
required to work overtime. Moreover, the County failed to
accurately record, report, and/or preserve records of hours that
they worked. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan A. Richmond, Esq.
MEGAN A. RICHMOND, APC
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-8495
Telephone: (619) 577-4253
Facsimile: (619) 577-4250
Email: megan@therichmondfirm.com
- and -
C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
Celine E. Cutter, Esq.
CUTTER LAW P.C.
401 Watt Ave., Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95864
Tel: (916) 290-9400
Fax: (916) 588-9330
Email: bcutter@cutterlaw.com
jparker@cutterlaw.com
ccutter@cutterlaw.com
SANRAJ INC: Hossain Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
SK MD Didier Hossain, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sanraj Inc., Sailesh Patel,
Falguni Patel and John Does 1-3, Jointly and Severally, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-03270, (E.D. N.Y., July 21, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed pursuant to both
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, unlawfully withheld
gratuities and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statement violations.
Defendants own and operate a motel doing business as "Linden Motor
Inn," located in Brooklyn, New York where Hossain is a former
janitor, housekeeper and maintenance worker. He claims to have
regularly worked over forty hours per week without overtime pay and
did not receive spread-of-hours premiums when he worked in excess
of ten hours in a given day. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
Website: www.PeltonGraham.com
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Warwick Suit Moved From Illinois to Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN WARWICK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC. and SCHNEIDER
FINANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01995, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on
October 8, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01556-WCG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violations of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, including unlawful deductions from
the Plaintiff's and other over-the-road truck drivers' wages,
unreimbursed business expenses, failure to timely pay wages and
final compensation.
Schneider National, Inc., is a provider of truckload, intermodal
and logistics services headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Schneider Finance, Inc. is a company that provides long-haul
trucking services headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 600
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (312) 263-0272
E-mail: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
eliveris@mmulderlaw.com
- and –
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Leslie Joyner, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
SEIDNER-MILLER INC: Faces Quintero Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR QUINTERO, JR., as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. SEIDNER-MILLER, INC., a California
corporation, dba TOYOTA OF GLENDORA; SEIDNER-MILLER AUTOMOTIVE,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
20STCV36852 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 7, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
non-exempt employees for recovery of civil penalties under
California Labor Code.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants have committed several
Labor Code violations against the Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees, which include failing to pay minimum wages for all hours
worked; failing to authorize and pay all legally required rest and
meal periods; failing to pay all earned overtime compensation;
failing to reimburse for all necessary business expenses; failing
to furnish with complete, accurate, itemized wage statements;
failing to timely pay all final wages due; failing to pay all
earned wages at least twice during each calendar month; and failing
to maintain accurate records on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt "sales
closer" from March 2019 until May 2020.
Seidner-Miller, Inc. and Seidner-Miller Automotive, Inc. own and
operate Toyota of Glendora, an automotive retailer in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Diana M. Martinez, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
dmartinez@haineslawgroup.com
SEMPER SOLARIS: Faces Rojas Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK ROJAS, an individual, on behalf of the State of California, as
a private attorney general, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated aggrieved employees v. SEMPER SOLARIS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00035083-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Private
Attorney General Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to provide him and
other similarly situated Aggrieved Employees with all of their
statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods; to provide them with
complete, accurate, itemized wage statements; to compensate them
with all earnings at their separation of employment; to adequately
reimburse them for necessary business expenditures incurred as a
direct consequence and requirement of performing their job duties;
to maintain accurate records; and to timely pay the Plaintiff and
similarly Aggrieved Employees.
On September 28, 2020, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant via
certified mail, and the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA) via its website concerning the Defendants'
violations.
The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt technician for the
Defendants.
Semper Solaris Construction, Inc., is a residential roofing and
solar panel installation company with numerous locations across
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (818) 456-6168
Fax: (888) 505-0868
E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com
- and –
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 975-1493
Fax: (310) 675-0861
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
SERVICEMASTER COMPANY: Edwards Labor Suit Hits Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tanesha Edwards and Jessica Ortega, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The ServiceMaster
Company, LLC and RAMAC Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-06124, (S.D. N.Y., August 5, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime
premium pay, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs of this action under New York labor laws.
ServiceMaster and RAMAC are engaged in the commercial pest control
business and services in property management, hospitality, retail,
education and food processing facilities where Plaintiffs worked as
Customer Service Representatives. They claim to be paid a lump-sum
per day to perform their work despite rendering in excess of 40
hours per work week. They failed to accurately track or record all
of the actual hours worked and failed to provide their customer
service representatives with a way to accurately record the hours
they actually worked. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Marijana Matura. Esq.
Tana Forrester, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
SILVER BOURBON: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Kikuchi Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN KIKUCHI, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly
Situated Individuals v. SILVER BOURBON, INC. D/B/A SCORES
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Case No. 2:20-cv-02764 (E.D. La., Oct. 8, 2020),
alleges that the Plaintiff was improperly classified by the
Defendant as independent contractor, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Louisiana Wage Payment Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exotic dancer at
the Club for from June 2012 through March 2020.
The complaint alleges that as a result of the misclassification,
the Defendant unlawfully deducted and assigned wages, tips, and
gratuities belonging to the Plaintiff and other members of the
class and collective and failed to pay proper minimum wage
compensation.
Silver Bourbon, Inc., is a corporation, formed under the laws of
Louisiana that operates as Scores, a strip club located in New
Orleans, Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kerry A. Murphy, Esq.
KERRY MURPHY LAW LLC
715 Girod Street, Suite 250
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 603-1502
E-mail: kmurphy@kerrymurphylaw.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
SMC CORPORATION: Downing Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen W. Downing, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SMC Corporation of America,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01954, (S.D. Ind., July 24, 2020), seeks
to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages or interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law of 1965.
Downing worked for SMC in the ISS/Claims Department from February
2017 to September 2019. She claims to be denied overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work
week at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate of pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Sandra L. Blevins, Esq.
Jamie A. Maddox, Esq.
BETZ + BLEVINS
One Indiana Square, Suite 1660
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: (317) 687-2222
Fax: (317) 687-2221
E-mail: litigation@betzadvocates.com
SPRING CREEK: Galvez BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as OSCAR ENRIQUEZ GALVEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPRING CREEK NURSING &
REHAB CENTER, LLC, Case No. 20L680, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Will County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on October 8, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06013 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing,
and using the finger scans of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated employees for employee timekeeping purposes
without first giving certain written disclosures, obtaining
informed written consent, or publishing a retention policy.
Spring Creek Nursing & Rehab Center, LLC is a provider of
short-term rehabilitation and long-term care services based in
Joliet, Illinois.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606-2841
Telephone: (312) 416-6200
E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
- and –
Joel Griswold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
SunTrust Center
200 S. Orange Ave., Suite 2300
Orlando, FL 32801-3432
Telephone: (407) 649-4088
E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com
ST. ANTHONY'S: House Files Suit for Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa M. House, on behalf of herself, and all those similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. St. Anthony Hospital,
Inc., Guy A. Medaglia and Bob Enkema, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-04448 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the City of Chicago Minimum Wage and
Paid Sick Leave Ordinance including redress for race discrimination
in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and
for sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act.
House was employed as an analyst in St. Anthony's finance
department from 2006 until she was terminated on May 26, 2020.
House regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was
not compensated at the required overtime rate.
She also claims to be paid $2.00/hour lower than a white male
analyst doing the same job. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Margherita M. Albarello, Esq.
Jonathan R. Ksiazek, Esq.
DI MONTE & LIZAK, LLC
216 W. Higgins Road
Park Ridge, IL 60068
Tel: (847) 698-9600
Fax: (847) 698-9624
Email: malbarello@dimontelaw.com
Jksiazek@dimontelaw.com
ST. ELIZABETH MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Christensen Suit Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William O. Bertelsman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division, at Covington,
granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, KERAM
J. CHRISTENSEN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SAINT ELIZABETH MEDICAL
CENTER, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-0043
(WOB-CJS) (E.D. Ky.).
The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Defendants
who allege that the Defendants should have been more careful with
their personal information. The Defendants allowed an employee to
work from home with an unencrypted flash drive containing the
personal information of approximately 9,000 current and previous
employees. The information on the flash drive included social
security numbers, names, dates of birth, and employee
identification numbers. The flash drive was stolen from the
employee's home during a burglary and has not been recovered.
Within 30 days of the theft, the Defendants mailed notice to each
potentially affected employee and set up a call center to answer
questions about the data breach. They also offered one year of
credit monitoring services.
The seven named Plaintiffs seek damages for the Defendants' alleged
carelessness in allowing an employee to take home an unencrypted
flash drive containing their personal information. They assert two
claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and six claims
under state law: negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary
duty, negligent inflection of emotional distress, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and breach of express or
implied-in-fact contract.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the FCRA does not
apply to them and the complaint inadequately pleads the state law
claims.
An issue concerning subject-matter jurisdiction was raised at oral
argument by the Court. The Court asked the counsel whether
jurisdiction would still exist if the FCRA claims were dismissed.
The Plaintiffs' counsel argued the Court would have jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), as alleged in
the complaint, and pointed out that the Defendants had not
challenged jurisdiction in their motion to dismiss.
The Defendants' counsel acknowledged they had not challenged CAFA
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Defendants' counsel advised that
jurisdictional issues could arise if the FCRA claims were
dismissed. The counsel for both sides admitted that there may be a
need for some discovery on CAFA jurisdiction.
A week after oral argument, Defendants filed a document entitled
"Supplemental Statement Regarding Jurisdiction." The document
identifies two exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, which order a
district court to decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction if certain
citizenship characteristics are present in the class. The
"Supplemental Statement" also represents that the Defendants'
records show that 8,032 of the 9,727 individuals who received mail
notice of the data breach reside in Kentucky.
The Plaintiffs filed a response brief and argue that the Defendants
conceded or waived any challenge to CAFA jurisdiction, and
alternatively argue that the Defendants had not met their burden of
proof under the exceptions. The Defendants filed a reply brief and
argue they did not waive or concede a challenge to CAFA
jurisdiction under the exceptions. Additionally, they filed a
signed affidavit, which attests to the veracity of the records
showing where notification letters were sent.
Judge Bertelsman finds the FCRA does not apply to the Defendants.
The FCRA creates a cause of action for willful or negligent
noncompliance with its provisions. The Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants failed to comply with Section 1681e(a), which requires a
consumer reporting agency to maintain reasonable procedures
designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports for certain
purposes. However, Section 1681e(a) is inapplicable because the
Defendants are not "consumer reporting agencies," and stolen
consumer information is not "furnished" for purposes of a Section
1681e(a) violation.
As the Plaintiffs' FCRA claims have now been dismissed, the case no
longer implicates a question of federal law. However, the
complaint asserts as an alternative basis for subject-matter
jurisdiction the CAFA. The issue of CAFA's applicability arose
during oral argument, and both parties filed supplemental briefing
on the matter. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have
conceded or waived any argument asserting an exception to CAFA
jurisdiction, and alternatively argue that the Defendants have not
met the requisite burden of proof to invoke one of the exceptions.
The Judge finds that the "home state exception" applies when
two-thirds or more of all members of the proposed class, and the
primary Defendants, are citizens in the state where the action was
originally filed. Over 80% of the proposed class are presumed to
be citizens of Kentucky, and all the Defendants are citizens of
Kentucky. The Judge finds the "home state" exception applies, and
is compelled to decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction over the
case.
The complaint alleged the Court had supplemental jurisdiction over
the Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1367. However, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over
such claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction. As set forth, the FCRA claims are
dismissed, and the Court is required by Section 1332(d)(4)(B) to
decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction over the matter.
Consequently, the Judge declines to exercise its supplemental
jurisdiction over the state claims.
Therefore, having reviewed the matter, Judge Bertelsman granted in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Claims I and
II of the complaint, dismissing the alleged violations of the FCRA.
The Judge declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), and thus
dismissed those claims.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/34V5ROI from
Leagle.com.
STOCKX LLC: Esquer Suit Transferred to Michigan Eastern District
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA ESQUER, Plaintiff, v. STOCKX, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-CV-05933-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, granted the Defendant's motion to transfer venue pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
Plaintiff Esquer is a resident of San Jose, California. She
commenced the action on behalf of herself and a putative class of
California residents.
Defendant StockX is a Michigan limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. The Defendant
operates a website that allows users to buy and sell "like-new
merchandise." On July 26, 2019, it purportedly discovered a breach
of 6.8 million customer records from its website. The breach was
reported in the media in August 2019. Plaintiff Esquer created an
account with the Defendant in early to mid-2019 and alleges that
her information was stolen in the data breach.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant knew about the breach but
informed its users to change their passwords because of "system
updates." They claim that the Defendant failed to take adequate
data-security measures and to detect and respond to the breach.
They also allege that it failed to follow data-security guidance
from the Federal Trade Commission. As a result, the Plaintiffs
state that the proposed class has suffered or will likely suffer
injuries including unauthorized charges, theft of personal
information, time and effort to regain access to accounts and
correct records, and diminution in the value of their personal
data.
Plaintiff Esquer filed the instant putative class action on Sept.
23, 2019, on behalf of herself and a proposed class comprising all
citizens of California whose Customer Data was stolen from StockX
during the Data Breach. Plaintiffs bring three claims: (1) a claim
under California Civil Code Section 1798.81.5 for failure to
maintain "reasonable security" of personal information; (2) a claim
under the Declaratory Judgment Act for a declaratory judgment; and
(3) a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law, premised
on violations of California Civil Code section 1798.81.5 and the
Federal Trade Commission Act. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as attorney's fees and costs.
In addition to the instant case, five other putative class actions
have been filed in federal court, four of which were filed prior to
this case: three in the Eastern District of Michigan, one in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one in the Southern District
of Florida. Although the Defendant sought multidistrict litigation
consolidation, on Dec, 18, 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation denied the Defendant's request to
consolidate litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan. On
Jan. 13, 2020, the parties to the Southern District of Florida case
stipulated to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Michigan.
On March 2, 2020, the four cases in the Eastern District of
Michigan were consolidated before Judge Victoria Roberts. The
Defendant has also moved to transfer the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania action to the Eastern District of Michigan; that
motion remains pending as of the date of the Order.
On Jan. 24, 2020, the Defendant moved to transfer the instant case
to the Eastern District of Michigan. The Plaintiffs opposed on
Feb. 21, 2020 and the Defendant filed its reply on March 9, 2020.
Judge Koh holds that the Eastern District of Michigan would have
had both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and
venue would have been appropriate there. The Judge thus concludes
that the instant case "might have been brought" in the Eastern
District of Michigan.
The Judge now turns to the second requirement for transfer: that
considerations of "convenience of parties and witnesses" and "the
interest of justice" weigh in favor of transfer. She analyzes
these statutory factors as well as other considerations that the
parties have raised. She ultimately finds that the Defendants have
met their burden of justifying transfer from the Court to the
Eastern District of Michigan.
Judge Koh concludes that the Defendant has met its burden to
justify transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan. Although the
Plaintiffs' choice of forum and the local interest in the
litigation weigh slightly against transfer, the Judge finds that
the judicial economy and convenience of the parties in transferring
the action to the same district as the pending, consolidated class
action weighs heavily in favor of transfer. These factors are
entitled to the greatest weight, for the "central purpose" of the
Court's inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh granted the Motion to
Transfer. The Clerk will transfer the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
A full-text copy of Judge Koh's June 26, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2IuMe8J from Leagle.com.
STUBHUB INC: Reynolds Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diane Reynolds, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc., a Delaware Corporation;
Last Minute Transactions Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Case No.
1:20-cv-03508, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 8, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-07040-HSG to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company. It
provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports,
concerts, theater and other live entertainment events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Johnson, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS J. JOHNSON JR., L.L.C.
500 Paterson Plank Road
Union City, NJ 07087
Phone: (201) 552-6858
Fax: (201) 552-6857
Email: ljohnson@louisjohnsonlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Omer W. Khwaja, Esq.
150 Hopkins Ave. #1
Jersey City, NJ 07306
Phone: (917) 574-3081
Email: okhwaja@gmail.com
TOP COAT EPOXY: Godinez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Arturo Godinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Top Coat Epoxy & Staining, LLC and
Guillermo Vidaurri, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00875, (W.D. Tex.,
July 28, 2020) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendants install epoxy floor coatings for both commercial and
residential customers in and around San Antonio, Texas where
Godinez was employed as an installer. Godinez consistently worked
over forty hours per week but was not paid overtime premiums for
any hours worked over forty per week, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, PC
2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
Email: doug@morelandlaw.com
TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY: Lupolover Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lupolover, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Travel Transparency of Arizona,
LLC and Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01321 (C.D.
Cal., July 22, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Travel Transparency of Arizona is a travel marketing company.
Lupolover claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls
from Travel Transparency on his phone. Lupolover is registered in
the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Ceres Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
Ceres Enterprises, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Travelers Insurance Company,
Defendants, Case No. CV-20-935219 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, July 27,
2020), seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such
other relief for breach of contract.
CERES owns and operates Residence Inn of Troy, Fairfield Inn of
Troy, Cambria Hotel of Avon and Hilton Garden Inn of Cleveland in
Ohio, Cambria Suites of Noblesville and Cambria Hotel of Westfield
in Indiana and Cambria Hotel of Bloomington in Minneapolis. These
hotels are insured with Travelers Insurance Company for Business
Income and Extra Expense coverage under Travelers' Package Policy
No. 630-2503R415-TIA-19.
Travelers is a Montana Company organized under Montana law, and is
a property and casualty insurer, with its principal place of
business in New York City, New York. During the COVID-19 pandemic,
Travelers denied coverage despite the fact that the policy does not
contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
CONNICK LAW, LLC
25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: (216) 364-0512
Fax: (216) 609-3446
Email: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Ellison Hits Share Drop Over Missed Earnings
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ellison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tufin Software Technologies Ltd., Reuven
Kitov, Jack Wakileh, Reuven Harrison, Ohad Finkelstein, Edouard
Cukierman, Yair Shamir, Ronni Zehavi, Yuval Shachar, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Jefferies LLC, Oppenheimer &
Co. Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Piper Jaffray & Co.,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, William Blair & Company,
LLC and D.A. Davidson & Co., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05646,
(S.D. N.Y., July 21, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of federal securities laws.
Tufin is an Israeli company that develops, markets, and sells
software and cloud-based security solutions primarily in the United
States, Europe and Asia. Reuven Kitov, Jack Wakileh, Reuven
Harrison, Ohad Finkelstein, Edouard Cukierman, Yair Shamir, Ronni
Zehavi and Yuval Shachar are members of its board of directors.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Jefferies LLC,
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Piper
Jaffray & Co., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, William
Blair & Company, LLC and D.A. Davidson & Co. are underwriters who
were also instrumental in soliciting and making the Tufin
securities in the Initial and Secondary Public Offerings (IPO/SPO)
available to the investing public. On April 11, 2019, Tufin issued
7,700,000 ordinary shares to the investing public at $14.00 per
share.
On January 8, 2020, Tufin released its preliminary fourth quarter
financial results for 2019 and announced significantly lowered
financial expectations in the range of $29.5 million to $30.1
million from its previous guidance of total revenue in the range of
$34.0 million to $38.0 million. It now anticipated non-Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) operating loss in the range
of $1.1 million to $2.6 million, compared to the previous guidance
of non-GAAP operating profit in the range of $0.0 million to $3.0
million stating Tufin's "inability to close a number of
transactions, primarily in North America, that anticipated would
close but did not close by the end of the quarter.
Following this news, Tufin's stock fell 24%, or $4.14 per share,
and its market capitalization declined nearly $145 million. Ellison
purchased stock in the company's April 2019 IPO and/or December
2019 SPO. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, Iv, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
rswartz@scott-scott.com
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
TYSON FOODS: Faces Mason Antitrust Suit Over Broiler Growing
------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA MASON; BARRY MASON; MITCHELL MASON; JONATHAN TIPTON; and all
others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON CHICKEN,
INC.; TYSON BREEDERS, INC.; TYSON POULTRY, INC.; PILGRIM'S PRIDE
CORPORATION; PERDUE FARMS, INC.; KOCH FOODS, INC.; (8) KOCH MEAT
CO, INC., d/b/a KOCH POULTRY CO.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON
FARMS, INC. (FOOD DIVISION); SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING
DIVISION); and ANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PRODUCTION DIVISION), Case No.
3:20-cv-07049 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2020), is an antitrust and unfair
competition action brought by a class of broiler chicken growers,
including the Plaintiffs, seeking treble damages under the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act.
The lawsuit is brought against vertically-integrated poultry
company Defendants, which operate broiler processing plants,
concerning their anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair, and
bad faith conduct in the domestic market for broiler growing
services. The case involves agreements by the Defendants and their
co-conspirators, also referred as the cartel, dating back to at
least 2008 with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining,
and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels.
According to the complaint, the cartel illegally agreed to share
detailed data on grower compensation with one another, with the
purpose and effect of artificially depressing grower compensation
below competitive levels. By disclosing their highly sensitive and
confidential compensation rates to each other, they suppressed
competition for broiler growing services and drove down
compensation to all growers. By sharing this information on a
frequent and contemporaneous basis, the cartel has been able to
keep grower compensation lower than it would have been in a
competitive market, and to keep the increased profits for
themselves. This illegal information exchange, combined with other
anticompetitive conduct alleged herein, drove down grower
compensation nationwide. The cartel recognized the benefits of
sharing this highly sensitive, proprietary and otherwise
confidential grower compensation information with each other, but
not with the growers themselves.
The cartel members also agreed not to solicit growers associated
with other integrators. By agreeing not to compete for the services
of one another's growers, the cartel members attempted to insulate
themselves from normal competitive pressures that could potentially
erode the effects of their information sharing agreement, the suit
says.
The Defendants are vertically-integrated poultry companies
operating in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Moneet Kohli, Esq.
1355 Taylor Street #3
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (781) 354-3600
E-mail: moneet@kohli.com
- and -
Marsha Mason, Esq.
MASON LAW FIRM LLC
P.O. Box 1837
Alexander City, AL 35011
Telephone: (256) 329-1313
Facsimile: (888) 597-7171
- and -
Robert Bonsignore, Esq.
BONSIGNORE, PLLC
3771 Meadowcrest Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Telephone: (781) 350-0000
Facsimile: (702) 852-5726
E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us
UNITED PROPANE: Eyes Seeks Overtime Wages for Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL EYES, individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. UNITED PROPANE
GAS, INC., a Kentucky Corporation, and ERIC T. SMALL, individually,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00208 (E.D. Tenn., Oct. 2, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver. The
Plaintiff alleges that despite routinely working in excess of 40
hours per week during some winter months, the Defendant did not pay
him and other similarly situated delivery drivers' overtime hours
worked at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay pursuant
to the FLSA. Instead, the Defendant only paid them commissions for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week within weekly pay periods.
United Propane Gas, Inc., owns and operates 71 propane distribution
facilities throughout the Eastern part of the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jacksoon, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
UNITED SPECIALTY: Bradley Suit Moved From Arkansas to California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Bradley, On Behalf of Himself, and all
Others Similarly Situated v. United Specialty Insurance Company,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00520, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 8, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-07042-YGR to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
United Specialty Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance
products and solutions, as well as reinsurance and
investments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dylan Hugh Potts, Esq.
Samuel Henry Piazza, Esq.
GILL RAGON OWEN P.A.
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3800
Little Rock, AR 72201-2413
Phone: (501) 376-3800
Email: potts@gill-law.com
piazza@gill-law.com
- and -
Derek H. Potts, Esq.
POTTS LAW FIRM, LLC
715 May Street, Suite 100
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: (816) 931-2230
Fax: (816) 931-7030
Email: dpotts@potts-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James J. Regan, Esq.
Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 1130
New York, NY 10169-0005
Phone: (212) 404-8735
Fax: (212) 818-9606
Email: JJRegan@duanemorris.com
TJCahill@duanemorris.com
- and -
Johnathan D. Horton, Esq.
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
Phone: (501) 371-0808
Fax: (501) 376-9442
Email: jhorton@wlj.com
UNITED STATES: Homeland's Bid to Claw Docs in Al Otro Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AL OTRO LADO, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHAD F.
WOLF, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in
his official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-2366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Karen S.
Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Defendants' request to claw back certain
documents.
On Jan. 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all
noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process
by presenting themselves at a Class A port of entry on the
U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S.
asylum process by or at the instruction of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection officials on or after Jan. 1, 2016. The Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Motion was supported by 67 declarations of
pseudonymous asylum-seekers, all of whom are putative class
members.
The Defendants, in turn, moved to strike the declarations,
demanding to know the identities of the declarants. The Plaintiffs
opposed and asserted, inter alia, that the declarants have a
genuine fear of retaliation by the government in immigration
enforcement proceedings. The Plaintiffs sought to support their
opposition to the Defendants' motion to strike with documents
produced in the litigation, which purportedly substantiate the
declarants' fear of retaliation. When the Defendants thereafter
requested to claw back those documents under a claim of privilege,
the dispute ensued.
At issue are 19 documents that fall into three categories: (1) an
email and 16 embedded images regarding Customs and Border
Protection's ("CBP") decision to revoke SENTRI border-crossing
privileges for Nicole Ramos, an attorney and employee of Plaintiff
Al Otro Lado (Government Exhibits ("Gov't Ex. 1 through 17, bearing
Bates numbers AOL-DEF-00556914 through AOL-DEF-00556934); (2) a
Border Patrol intelligence report (Gov't Ex. 18, bearing Bates
numbers AOL-DEF-00528691-707); and (3) a Power Point presentation
prepared to brief Customs and Border Patrol leadership about
certain operations at the border in late December 2018 (Gov't Ex.
19, bearing Bates numbers AOL-DEF-00516605-623).
The Defendants assert each of the 19 documents is protected by the
law enforcement privilege. In support of their assertion of the
law enforcement privilege, they submit declarations from Customs
and Border Patrol's Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John P.
Wagner, and Chief Patrol Agent Aaron Heitke. No other privilege or
protection from disclosure is claimed.
Pursuant to the protective order that governs discovery in the
litigation, the Defendants have designated each of the 19 documents
either "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes
Only." Thus, the Defendants additionally request to file under
seal portions of the parties' Joint Motion that quote from or refer
to the documents. Deputy Commissioner Wagner's and Agent Heitke's
declarations are also submitted in support the Defendants' sealing
request. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion to Seal.
For the most part, the Defendants and their declarant treat the
SENTRI email and the 16 images embedded in it (Gov't Exs. 1-17,
Bates Nos. AOL-DEF-00556914 through AOL-DEF-00556934) in the
aggregate. They assert broadly that the SENTRI email and images
reveal the types and sources of information that CBP considers
relevant for determining eligibility in its Trusted Traveler
Programs, and, more specifically, the types of information that CBP
considers when assessing whether an individual qualifies as a
low-risk traveler eligible for SENTRI enrollment. The Defendants
state that if they are not allowed to claw back these documents,
bad actors may be able to identify possible gaps in CBP's decision
making, manipulate information provided to CBP, and change their
behavior in order to inappropriately obtain Trusted Traveler
privileges. This, the Defendants claim, would undermine their law
enforcement efforts.
Magistrate Judge Crawford finds that because the declaration
submitted on behalf of the Defendants only provides general
assertions of harm and fails to demonstrate why disclosing the
information sought under a carefully crafted protective order to
protect the confidentiality of the information would harm a
significant governmental interest, the Defendants have failed to
make the requisite threshold showing that the SENTRI email and
embedded images are protected by the law enforcement privilege.
Accordingly, the Judge does not need to engage in the balancing
test articulated by the Kelly v. City of San Jose court.
Nevertheless, Judge Crawford further finds that even if the
Defendants had made a threshold showing that the SENTRI email and
embedded images are protected by the law enforcement privilege, the
Plaintiffs' need for the information transcends that privilege.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not offered a
persuasive explanation why the reasons underlying Ramos's SENTRI
revocation relate to metering. Whether or not these documents are
necessary to litigate the Plaintiffs' causes of action, they are
relevant to the Plaintiffs' ability to oppose to the Defendants'
motion to strike 67 witness declarations in support of the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Despite the
Defendants' insistence that the SENTRI email and images are of no
importance to the Plaintiffs' case, certification is a significant
litigation event in a class action. Thus, the Plaintiffs' need for
this evidence is sufficient to "overcome" any asserted law
enforcement privilege.
The Defendants also assert law enforcement privilege over certain
information appearing on the page bearing Bates number
AOL-DEF-00528703, contained in an unclassified Field Information
Report regarding a migrant caravan and possible marriage fraud
activities.
The Magistrate Judge holds that the same deficiencies in the
Defendants' showing regarding the SENTRI email and images are
present here. The harms articulated by them are too speculative and
generalized to establish that the information is privileged. Their
declarant describes how public disclosure of the document may harm
the Defendants' legitimate law enforcement interests, but aside
from their conclusory assertion, the Defendants provide "no basis"
for the Court to conclude that the attorneys-eyes-only designation
of the document is inadequate to protect the competing interests
involved.
For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge again finds that the
Defendants have not made the showing necessary to invoke the law
enforcement privilege with respect to the "Information Gaps" on
page AOL-DEF-00528703 of the Field Information Report. Although
the Defendants' failure relieves the Court of the need to assess
the Plaintiffs' interest in disclosure, the Magistrate nevertheless
further finds that the document is relevant to the Plaintiffs'
arguments in support of class certification, and that that interest
is sufficient to overcome any asserted privilege.
Finally, the Defendants assert the law enforcement privilege over
portions of a CBP PowerPoint Presentation (Gov't Ex. 19, Bates Nos.
AOL-DEF-00516605-623). They initially designated the document
"Confidential," but subsequently re-designated it "Highly
Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only," to which the Plaintiffs did
not object.
Once again, the Magistrate Judge holds that these assertions of
harm "lack case-specific information" and do not "offer a
convincing reason" why disclosure under the protective order
"already in place" would be harmful. The Defendants have failed to
make the requisite threshold showing that the law enforcement
privilege protects these documents from disclosure. Furthermore,
the Magistrate Judge finds the document is relevant to the
Plaintiffs' arguments in support of class certification, such that
even if the law enforcement privilege applied, that qualified
privilege is overcome by the Plaintiffs' need for the information.
Although the Magistrate Judge has found that some of the documents
in question are not privileged, the Defendants' representations
that these documents contain confidential and sensitive
law-enforcement information that could harm CBP's and other
entities' operations if publicly disclosed are sufficient to
establish good cause for sealing. Further, the documents were
designated by the Defendants under the Protective Order as either
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only."
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge finds the SENTRI email and 12 of
its embedded images, the Field Information Report, and the
PowerPoint presentation (Gov't Exs. 1-13, 18 and 19), and any
portion of the Joint Motion that references these exhibits should
be sealed. However, the Defendants have not provided the Court
with good cause to seal four statements posted by Ms. Ramos on her
social media accounts (Gov't Exs. 14, 15, 16 and 17). Where
information is "already publicly available," the Magistrate Judge
cannot justify sealing it from public view.
For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Crawford:
(i) denied the Defendants' request to claw back the documents
bearing Bates numbers AOL-DEF-00556914 through AOL-DEF-
00556934 (Gov't Exs. 1-17);
(ii) granted the Defendants' request to claw back the document
bearing Bates numbers AOL-DEF-00528691-707 (Gov't Ex. 18)
with respect to the database identification code on page
AOL-DEF-00528703 and is otherwise denied; and
(iii) granted the Defendants' request to claw back the document
bearing Bates numbers AOL-DEF-00516605-623 (Gov't Ex. 19)
with respect to the database identification code on AOL-
DEF-00516617, and denied as to all other information on
pages AOL-DEF-00516617 and AOL-DEF-00516618.
Judge Crawford granted the parties' Motion to Seal the Joint
Motion.
Without delay, the Defendants are directed to lodge under seal on
the docket the documents bearing Bates numbers AOL-DEF-00556914
through AOL-DEF-00556930, the document bearing Bates numbers
AOL-DEF-00528691-707, and the document bearing Bates numbers
AOL-DEF-00516605-623 (Gov't Exs. 1-13, 18 and 19), redacted for
privilege as consistent with the Order. The Defendants will also
file these documents on the public docket, with the confidential
information identified by them redacted.
The Defendants are also directed to file on the public docket the
documents bearing Bates numbers AOL-DEF-00556931 through
AOL-DEF-00556934 (Gov't Exs. 14, 15, 16 and 17).
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2SNq3fM from Leagle.com.
US OIL FUND: Ephrati Suit Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Moshe Ephrati, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Oil Fund, LP, United States
Commodity Funds LLC, John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06010 (S.D. N.Y., July 31, 2020), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The United States Oil Fund is an exchange traded fund designed to
track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) light, sweet crude oil delivered to
Cushing, Oklahoma. It stated that it would achieve its investment
objective by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets in
the near month WTI futures contract. However, oil demand fell
precipitously as governments imposed lockdowns and businesses
halted operations in response to the coronavirus pandemic. In
addition, in early March 2020, Saudi Arabia and Russia launched an
oil price war, increasing production and slashing export prices in
a bid to increase the global market share of their domestic
petrochemical enterprises. Said fund suffered exceptional losses
but rather than disclose the impacts and risks to the fund, it
conducted a massive offering of its shares, ultimately selling
billions of dollars' worth. It exacerbated the undisclosed risks to
the fund by magnifying trading inefficiencies and causing the fund
to approach position and accountability limits as a result of the
massive positions in the WTI futures market. The fund suffered
billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its
investment strategy.
On May 27, 2020, the United States Oil Fund they declared that they
suffered over $2.6 billion in total losses for the month, which
included more than $3.6 billion in realized trading losses on
futures contracts.
Ephrati acquired United States Oil Fund securities at artificially
inflated prices and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Berg Slams Share Drop in IPO-related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward A. Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Velocity Financial, Inc., Christopher D.
Farrar, Mark R. Szczepaniak, Christopher J. Oltmann, Alan H.
Mantel, Ian K. Snow, John A. Pless, Brandon Kiss, Ogden Phipps,
Daniel J. Ballen, John P. Pitstick, Joy L. Schaefer, Snow Phipps
Group, LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., JMP Securities LLC and Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06780, (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2020), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal
securities laws in connection with Velocity Financial's January
2020 initial public offering (IPO).
Velocity is a real estate finance company headquartered in Westlake
Village, California, that originates and manages loans issued to
borrowers nationwide to finance the purchase of small residential
rental and commercial real estate investment properties. Most of
its loans were geographically concentrated in California, New York,
Florida and New Jersey.
Defendants failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO,
Velocity's nonperforming loans had dramatically increased in size
from the figures provided in the IPO materials, as measured by both
the amount of unpaid principal balance and as a percentage of its
overall loan portfolio. In addition, Velocity failed to provide any
information to investors regarding the potential impact of the
novel coronavirus on its business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO.
By May 15, 2020, Velocity stock closed at just $2.53 per share
whereas its IPO, just four months previously, was at $13.00. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Walton, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Fax: (619) 231-7423
Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Joseph Russello, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
jrussello@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
VIRGINIA COMMUNITY: Court Junks Dismissal Motion in Moore Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANICE A. MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA
COMMUNITY BANKSHARES, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:19CV00045 (W.D. Va.), Judge Glen E. Conrad of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville
Division, denied both the Defendants' (i) motion to dismiss Moore's
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and (ii)
motion to supplement the record.
Janice Moore filed a two-count putative class action complaint on
Aug. 12, 2019, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA") by Defendants Virginia Community
Bankshares, Inc. ("Holding Company"); Virginia Community Bank
("VCB"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Holding Company; A.
Pierce Stone; Ronald S. Spicer; John A. Hodge; and H.B. Sedwick,
III.
Moore is a former VCB employee and former participant in an
Employee Stock Ownership Plan -- a retirement plan -- sponsored by
the Holding Company for the benefit of employees of the Holding
Company and of VCB. The bulk of the Plan's assets were in Holding
Company stock with the remainder invested in cash. Moore alleges
that the Boards of Directors of the Holding Company and of VCB
(which included Spicer) administered the Plan, that the same people
who controlled the ESOP also controlled VCB, and that VCB had
discretion to make stock bonus contributions to the ESOP. At "all
relevant times," Stone, Hodge, and Sedwick were trustees of the
ESOP. The Plan has since terminated, effective Dec. 31, 2016.
The Defendants' initial Motion to Dismiss raised three principle
arguments: (1) that Moore's complaint is untimely under ERISA's
statutory time limits; (2) that Moore fails to plausibly allege
that Defendants possessed but failed to disclose materially adverse
information in 2006; and (3) that Defendants VCB and Ronald Spicer
are not proper defendants, or that the complaint does not
sufficiently allege that they are fiduciaries under ERISA.
The Court entered an order which, in part, took the motion under
advisement and permitted the parties to jointly submit documents
that they agreed were integrated into Moore's complaint or subject
to judicial notice, were relevant to the motion, and were
authentic. The order also invited supplemental briefing.
The parties submitted a joint declaration and accompanying
documents contemplated by the court's order. At the same time, the
Defendants filed a motion arguing that the Court should consider
additional documents. Moore responded that these documents were
not explicitly relied on in her complaint. The Defendants'
supplemental briefing offered additional arguments for dismissal,
to which Moore has responded.
The Defendants maintain that Moore fails to plead the facts
surrounding the March 2007 valuation with the requisite
specificity, and thus, that the Court should dismiss the fraudulent
valuation claim with prejudice.
Judge Conrad disagrees. The Defendants have not shown that Moore's
allegations as to the 2007 valuation are otherwise deficient.
Moore points to the Holding Company share values both before and
after the valuation as indicating that Howe Barnes did not have the
facts to make an accurate assessment. There is also no indication
that the record in Meek included anything like the 2011 Compliance
Agreement in the case.
In their supplemental memorandum, the Defendants argue that the
2007 and 2008 loans were legal. Thus, they assert that under
ERISA's disclosure requirements, there was no affirmative duty to
inform plan participants about them.
The problem with this argument is that the duty to inform entails
not only a negative duty not to misinform, but also an affirmative
duty to inform when the trustee knows that silence might be
harmful, the Court notes. The Judge holds that Moore sufficiently
explains how it is plausible that the 2007 valuation was
fraudulent, that the loans incorporated aspects of that valuation,
and that the loans violated ERISA and/or did not comport with the
Defendants' fiduciary duties. Moore has also sufficiently alleged
that the loans were purposefully not disclosed to her, and that the
Defendants knew or should have known that those loans might result
in harm to her and other Plan participants.
The Defendants have also moved to dismiss Moore's claims as
untimely, which is an affirmative defense. Having reviewed the
record and applicable law, Judge Conrad concludes that Moore's
claims cannot be dismissed as untimely at this stage of the
proceedings. Simply stated, the facts on the record do not
"foreclose" Moore's reliance on the fraud or concealment exception
as a "rejoinder" to the Defendants' argument that her claims are
untimely. Accordingly, the Judge will deny the motion to dismiss
Moore's claims under Section 1113.
Next, the Defendants move for partial dismissal on the basis that
Moore fails to adequately plead that either VCB or Spicer are ERISA
fiduciaries. Here too, the Judge disagrees. Drawing all
reasonable inferences in Moore's favor, he believes that these
allegations make it plausible that Spicer and VCB exercised some
"discretionary authority or control" over the Plan, whether
formally or informally. As a result, Judge Conrad finds it
plausible that they were fiduciaries of the ESOP with respect to
the breaches alleged by Moore. Accordingly, the Judge will not
dismiss VCB and Spicer from the case at this stage.
For the reasons stated, Judge Conrad denied the Motion to Dismiss
and the Motion to Supplement the Record
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/34MwPYw from Leagle.com.
WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Beardsley Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAISTLIN BEARDSLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-07967-UA
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to
exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding the personal
financial data of customers, including the Plaintiff and class
members, who purchase music and music-related merchandise through
the Defendants' Web sites.
On August 5, 2020, the Defendant became aware that between April
25, 2020, and August 5, 2020, a data breach happened where
unauthorized third party had potentially gained access to private
information ("PI") that customers had provided to the Defendant
when making purchases on websites Defendant operates.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and class members' PI
was stolen by hackers. The PI may be used for criminal purposes,
such as identity theft and fraudulent purchases, and may be sold by
the hackers responsible for the data breach to other criminals on
the dark Web. The data breach was caused and enabled by the
Defendant's violation of its obligations to abide by best practices
and industry standards concerning the security of payment systems.
The Defendant allegedly failed to comply with security standards
and allowed its customers' PI to be compromised by cutting corners
on security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the
data breach that occurred.
The Plaintiff and class members face ongoing risks of identity
theft and financial crimes due to the data breach, the suit says.
Warner Music Group Corp. is an American multinational entertainment
and record label conglomerate headquartered in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: LFeldman@4-justice.com
- and -
David J. George, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
- and -
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
Justin Teres, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 899-1760
E-mail: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
jteres@calcaterrapollack.com
WESTFIELD AMERICA: Cota Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Westfield
America Limited Partnership and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01450 (S.D. Cal., July 28, 2020), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.
Defendant operates https://www.westfield.com/ that allows consumers
to access goods and services in connection with its physical retail
stores, as well as additional information about products and
services such as gift cards, deals and events, which are available
online and in its physical stores for purchase. Cota is legally
blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
WHELAN EVENT: Faces Gorman Suit in Florida Over FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whelan Event Staffing
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Edward Gorman, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whelan
Event Staffing Services, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-02275-CEH-AEP (M.D
Fla., Sept. 28, 2020).
The nature of the suit is stated as consumer credit filed pursuant
to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.
Whelan Even Staffing Services, Inc., provides a full array of event
staffing and crowd management services for major venues throughout
the U.S. including professional sporting events, political
gatherings, concerts, conferences, conventions, collegiate events
and other large affairs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
Tampa, FL 33602-3343
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
- and -
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES P.C.
763 J Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Hart, Esq.
SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
525 Okeechobee Blvd., Ste. 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6351
Telephone: (561) 650-8525
Facsimile: (561) 822-5528
E-mail: jhart@shutts.com
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Franke Labor Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whole Foods Market
California Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Tessa Franke, as
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
as a private attorney general v. Whole Foods Market California
Inc., a California corporation, Case No. CGC20586827 (Cal. Super.,
San Francisco Cty., Sept. 28, 2020).
The case type is stated as other non-exempt complaints in violation
of the California Labor Code.
A case management conference is set for March 3, 2021, before Judge
Samuel K. Feng.
Whole Foods Market California is an organic grocery store based in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee. Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
- and -
William L Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito St., # 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***