/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201201.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 1, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 240
Headlines
ADIENT PLC: Bristol Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
ADT INC: Mey Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ADVANCE AUTO: Seeks 3rd Circuit Review in PERS Securities Suit
AMAZON INC: Faces Smalls Suit Over Racial Bias in COVID-19 Response
AMAZON.COM LLC: Charges Sales Tax on Face Masks, Ranalli Claims
AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Rollman Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
AMNEAL PHARMA: Brice Sues Over Carcinogenic Diabetes Drug
AMTROL INC: Cordero Sues Over Racial Discrimination in Workplace
ARCHER DANIELS: Green Plains Suit Moved From D. Nev. to C.D. Ill.
ARIZONA: Kogianes Sues Over Inmates' Rights
BAKER TECH: Stay of Komaiko Pending Rulings in Barr & Duguid Denied
BAKERY DEPOT: Faces Perez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit Underway in California
BBVA USA: St. Lucie Fire Firefighters Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
BIOSCRIP INFUSION: Huber Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action Status
BLACKBAUD INC: Lofton Sues Over Data Breach
BLUE APRON HOLDINGS: Chute Hits Share Drop Over Delayed Deliveries
BLUE LAGOON: Simon Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Handymen
BOB BAKER VOLKSWAGEN: Barba Slams Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
BOCCACCIOS RESTAURANT: Faces Perez Employment Suit in California
BRENDAN KELLY: McFarland Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Illinois
BROKEN ARROW: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUBBA GUMP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Alcazar's ADA Lawsuit
CARAMICO 33 CORP: Faces Ammar Employment Suit in New York
CHAAC PIZZA: Authorization to Send Notice to Drivers Class Sought
CHARLES M. LEE: Faces Chon Lee Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cirillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CLAIR DOLL: Court Dismisses Motion to Strike as Moot in "Thakker"
CNB BANK: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Wriglesworth Claims
COCA-COLA: Jones Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
COLORED ORGANICS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMPETENTIA US: Kasper Seeks Project Managers' Unpaid Overtime
COMPLETION EQUIPMENT: Galindo Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
CREEK GROUP: Denied Austin Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
CUGURT RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Cruz Suit Claims
DNATA US: Fails to Provide Spread of Hours Pay, Villar Suit Says
DOLGENCORP LLC: Thornton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Smorowski Claims Discount Promo Deceptive
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Video Game Loot Boxes
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Laborers Pension Seeks to Certify Class Action
ETX ENERGY: Byrd FLSA Class Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to N.D. Okla.
EVA FRANCO: Kiler Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Claims Partly Granted
FIRST STUDENT: Brewton BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FORD MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss Class Allegations Partly Granted
FORD MOTOR: Fails to Cover Warranty-Related Repairs, Martin Says
GARRETT MOTION: Husson Hits Share Price Drop
GENERAL MOTORS: Siqueiros Fraud Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
GODADDY.COM LLC: $8.75MM Counsel Fees Awarded in Drazen TCPA Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss XP Inc. IPO Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Stay Venator IPO Related Suit Junked
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing GoHealth IPO Related Securities Class Suits
GOOGLE LLC: Kober Antitrust Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, Stark Suit Says
GREAT SOUTHERN: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
HANESBRANDS INC: Cota Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
HAY ADAMS: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Suit Claims
HERMAN JONES: Shaw Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Sues Over Missed Breaks
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Wage & Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
ICONIC MORTGAGE: Correll TCPA Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to S.D. Fla.
INDIGO FACILITY: Shone FLSA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Texas
IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Myers Seeks 2 Classes in FLSA Suit
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Vrugtman Says Online Dating Process Fraudulent
JEA SENIOR: Bowen Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. California
JOLO INC: Saad FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
JOSHUA DAVID: Faces Yoffee Suit Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
JVA INDUSTRIES: Workers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime, Missing Paystubs
KATERRA INC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
KEAGLE INC: Campbell Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
KEYBANK NA: Conditional Certification of Class Members Sought
KNAUF GIPS: Arnold Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Burgos Sues Over Corrosive Effects of Gypsum Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Drywall Causes Damage to Property, Feng Hu Suit Claims
KNAUF GIPS: Foreman Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Ginart Suit Alleges Distribution of Defective Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Jackson Land Sues Over Sale of Defective Gypsum Drywall
L BRANDS: Allison Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
LASERFORM LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Operators, Wilkerson Says
LEVEL 28 NUTRIDRIP: Olsen Files ADA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Watson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Marano Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
LIFELABS: Personal Data Breach Leads to Multiple Class Action Suits
LIVE AUCTIONEERS: Zheng Files Suit in S.D. New York
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Court Preliminarily Certifies Class in Reetz Suit
MAGGIE DOG: Markham Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE: Glynn ERISA Suit Wins Class Certification
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ch. 11 Cases Closed UAP&P Local 322 Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Marietta Putative Class Suit Closed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend Shaver Putative Class Suit
MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
MARRIOTT INT'L: Barnes FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Aronstein Appeals Judgment to 1st Circuit
MEIJI RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. of Cleaners Class Granted
MEP NATIONWIDE: Faces Saylor Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
METRODATA: 1681c Class Granted, 1681k Class Denied in "Wentworth"
MEYER DISTRIBUTING: Rocero Wage & Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Approves Stipulated Settlement Agreement
MORGAN & MORGAN: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Sloatman Suit Says
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Root Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEOVASC INC: Faces Siple Suit Over 42% Drop in Share Price
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Jones Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Malo Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D. Ariz.
NOR-CAL VENTURE: Diosdado Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
OFFERUP INC: Conner Claims Website not Blind-accessible
ONE PLANET OPS: Loftus Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Zlotky Files Suit v. Trustees
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bid to Certify June 10 Summary Judgment Denied
READY WIRE: Electricians Sue Over Denied Overtime Pay, Payslips
REAL HOSPITALITY: Hotel Staff Slams Lack of Closure/Layoff Notice
RENTOKIL NORTH: Dotan Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
RICO POLLO: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
RMI INTERNATIONAL: Abedalsalam Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ROANOKE AIRPORT: Joint Bid for Conditional Collective Cert. Sought
ROLLIN COOK: Joint Motion to Amend Class Definition Sought
RUBY NAILS TARRYTOWN: Sanango Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
SALLY BEAUTY: Contents of 1 Liter Items Short of a Liter, Suit Says
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Robinson-Luqman Sues Over Race Bias at Work
SAS INSTITUTE: Cahoo Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice to SAS
SAUNDERS CORP: Harrington Alleges Wrongful Termination
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
SHEEX INC: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SHILDAN TEXERE: Angeles Sues Over Bind-Inaccessible Website
SIBANYE-STILLWATER: Securities Class Action Suit Dismissed
SIXT RENT-A-CAR: Vitale-Renner Sues Over Insurance Premiums
SJ EUS FOOD: Faces Davis Suit in California Over ADA Violation
SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Grissom Sues Over Erroneous Background Check
STOCKTON NURSING: Hudson Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Refunds
THIRD AVENUE: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
TOTAL RENAL: Hesketh Labor Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
TOWER HILL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Recovery Says
TRALEE AFFORDABLE: Two Settlement Classes Certified in Davis Suit
TTAC PUBLISHING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Shultz TCPA Suit
U.S. CITIZENSHIP: ITServe et al. Drop Third Cause of Action
UNITED STATES: Catholic Charities' Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Health Providers Files ERISA Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT: Toro Suit Removed to Conn. Federal Court
UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS: Butterfield Seeks Healthcare Staff's OT Pay
VEST MONROE: Unlawfully Discloses Mental Health Records, Suit Says
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Silva Sues Over Manual Workers' Unpaid Wages
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT: Winks Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Conditional Cert. of Managers' Class Granted
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Chavez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
WASHINGTON: Class Certification Bid in "Taylor" Suit Denied
WELLPATH LLC: Shortchanges Workers Overtime Pay, Myles Says
WELLS FARGO BANK: Phone Bankers Sue Over Unpaid Hours
WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement in ATM Access Fee Suit Pending
WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal
WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 29 Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Shareholder Securities Fraud Class Suit Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: Wilson Sues Over Improper Charging of Overdraft Fees
WEST SHORE: Faces Beiswinger Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
WESTPAC BANKING: Class Action Proceeding in Australia Discontinued
WESTPAC BANKING: Initial Trial in Australia Suit Set for May 2021
WESTPAC BANKING: Settlement Reached in Rosen Law Firm Suit
WHELAN SECURITY: Goto Remanded to San Francisco Cty. Superior Court
WORKFORCE RESOURCES: Abdul Jamil Class Action Settlement Granted
WRIGHT OF INDIANA: Underpays Flaggers, Grammer Suit Claims
*********
ADIENT PLC: Bristol Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bristol County Retirement System filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 14,
2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Julio Barreto, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Adient PLC, R. Bruce McDonald, Jeffrey M. Stafeil, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-9116, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Adient is an Irish corporation that designs, engineers and
manufactures automotive seating. Nearly half of its annual revenues
derive from the sale of metal components used in seat frames
produced by its seat structures and mechanisms.
On May 3, 2018, Defendants announced they recorded a $299 million
impairment charge related to its seat structures and mechanisms
business and admitted that it was facing significant operational
and financial headwinds and a planned margin expansion was no
longer achievable. This news drove the price of Adient shares down
$6.14 per share, or about 10%, to close at $55.84 that day. On June
11, 2018, Adient announced the sudden and immediate resignation of
CEO McDonald and slashed its earnings guidance. This news drove the
price of Adient shares down $8.88 per share, or about 15.6%, to
close at $48.10 that day.
On April 2, 2020, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the second amended consolidated class action complaint, and on
April 7, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants. On
October 14, 2020, the court denied the Plaintiffs' first motion to
set aside the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6) and for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as well as Plaintiffs' amended
second motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and for leave to amend the complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).
Judge Ronnie Abrams on October 14, 2020, entered a Memorandum and
Opinion denying Plaintiff Bristol County Retirement System's
motions to set aside judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) and
60(b)(6) and for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Rule
15(a).
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE ADIENT PLC SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-3846, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, November 10, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Bristol County Retirement System is represented
by:
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
1 Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 531-3933
E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees Adient PLC, R. Donald McDonald, and Jeffrey M.
Stafeil are represented by:
Jeffrey Thomas Scott, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-3082
E-mail: scottj@sullcrom.com
ADT INC: Mey Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ADT, Inc., Safe Streets USA, LLC and Perfectvision
Manufacturing, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00209 (N.D. W.V.,
September 25, 2020), seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive
relief for injuries caused under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
ADT, Inc. sells home-security hardware and home-monitoring
subscriptions. To generate sales and subscribers, ADT relies on a
network of third-party authorized dealers like Safe Streets, who in
turn rely on telemarketing conducted by sales lead generators like
PerfectVision Manufacturing.
Mey claims to have received illegal auto-dialed and prerecorded
telemarketing calls from PerfectVision and Safe Streets without her
permission.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
Sharon F. Iskra, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
ymarshall@baileyglasser.com
siskra@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
99 High St., Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
Email: ted@broderick-law.com
- and -
Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
1 South Avenue, Suite 3
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net
ADVANCE AUTO: Seeks 3rd Circuit Review in PERS Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Advance Auto Parts Inc, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE ADVANCE AUTO
PARTS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1-18-cv-00212, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, lead plaintiff
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi asserts claims
for federal securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Section 10(b) claim is
asserted against Advance Auto, Thomas R. Greco, and Thomas Okray
("Advance Auto Defendants"). Messrs. Greco and Okray ("Individual
Defendants") were the CEO and CFO of Advance Auto, respectively.
The Section 20(a) claim is asserted against Starboard Value LP and
Jeffrey C. Smith ("Starboard Defendants") as well as the Individual
Defendants. Starboard is a hedge fund that owned approximately 3.7%
of Advance Auto's shares, and Smith was the CEO of Starboard. In
connection with Starboard's investment in Advance Auto, Smith was
also appointed to the Board of Directors for Advance Auto.
In a nutshell, the complaint alleges that the Defendants projected
increased sales and operating margins for Advance Auto in fiscal
year 2017 ("FY17 projections") at a time when they knew those
projections were unattainable. When "the truth finally emerged" in
August 2017, the Company's stock price dropped. The Plaintiff
thereafter initiated the lawsuit.
Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Lead Plaintiff seeks to certify a class on behalf of
itself and all other persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Advance Auto common stock between November 14,
2016 and August 15, 2017 (the "Class Period"). Pursuant to Rule
23(g), Lead Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check as Class Counsel and deLeeuw Law as
Liaison Counsel. The Defendants oppose the Motion and have also
filed a Motion for Leave to File a Surreply.
On November 6, 2020, the Court ruled that the Lead Plaintiff's
Motion is granted, and the Defendants' Motion is denied as it is
untimely.
The appellate case is captioned as Jewel Wigginton, et al. v.
Advance Auto Parts Inc, et al., Case No. 20-8036, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, November 20,
2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
MISSISSIPPI and JEWEL WIGGINTON, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:
Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com
- and -
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
- and -
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0336
E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
Defendants-Petitioners ADVANCE AUTO PARTS INC., THOMAS OKRAY,
THOMAS R. GRECO, STARBOARD VALUE LP, and JEFFREY C. SMITH are
represented by:
Douglas Baumstein, Esq.
MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO
666 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 692-6734
E-mail: DBaumstein@mintz.com
- and -
Emily K. Musgrave, Esq.
MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 542-6000
E-mail: EKMusgrave@mintz.com
- and -
Kevin M. Coen, Esq.
David John Teklits, Esq.
MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL
1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 658-9200
E-mail: kcoen@mnat.com
dteklits@mnat.com
AMAZON INC: Faces Smalls Suit Over Racial Bias in COVID-19 Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------
chicagodefender.com reports that former Amazon, Inc. employee Chris
Smalls sued his former employer on behalf of a class of similarly
situated African American and Latino workers for its failure to
provide personal protective equipment (PPE) and complying with
other safety guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As New York City was fast becoming the epicenter of this deadly and
brutal disease, Amazon knowingly subjected its majority-minority
line workers to unsafe, dangerous, and inferior work conditions as
compared to its white employees working in managerial
classifications. When Chris Smalls organized workers against
Amazon's discriminatory practices by voicing his opposition in an
effort to protect the workers, he was fired.
In an attempt to further discredit Chris Smalls, Amazon concluded
that as a Black man, he would serve as a "weak spokesman" for the
workers and criticized him for standing up and fighting for the
workers", said Smalls' attorney CK Hoffler. "Over 240,000 people
have died in the United States from COVID-19 and millions have been
infected, but Amazon was cavalier with the safety of its employees
amidst this pandemic. Amazon puts profits before people and placed
its workers at risk."
The lawsuit alleges violations of 42 U.S.C Section 1981 as well as
Executive Law of State of New York and section 8-107(7) of the New
York City Human Rights Law, among other things. The New York
Attorney General's office is also investigating a whistleblower
action against Amazon related to Chris Smalls' claims and
allegations.
"I was a loyal worker and gave my all to Amazon until I was
unceremoniously terminated and tossed aside like the trash because
I insisted that Amazon protect its dedicated workers from
COVID-19," said Smalls who had been employed at Amazon for 4 1/2
years before the termination. "I just wanted Amazon to provide
basic protective gear to the workers and sanitize the workplace"
Famed civil rights icon Reverend Jesse Jackson and Rainbow Push
Coalition are also supporting Smalls' fight against Amazon. "I have
spent my entire career fighting against the type of oppression that
Chris and his fellow workers experienced at JFK8 and around the
world," said Jackson, the legendary civil rights leader. "It's a
shame that Amazon would not protect its workers and laborers,
exposing them to one of the deadliest enemies in modern history --
COVID-19. It's not right and I applaud Chris for his courage under
fire. We, too, stand in solidarity with him on this journey.
COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted Black and Brown
communities on so many levels, from warehouses to jailhouses. It's
an invisible enemy that is killing our communities. Chris's case is
a classic example of how corporate greed and insensitivity can
literally expose communities to untold and unnecessary risks. We
must continue to fight for the voiceless who can't fight for
themselves because of their circumstances."
Chris Smalls is also represented by civil rights attorney Michael
H. Sussman from Goshen. [GN]
AMAZON.COM LLC: Charges Sales Tax on Face Masks, Ranalli Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCE RANALLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, LLC; ZAZZLE INC; ARENA MERCHANDISING BY AND
THROUGH AMAZON.COM, LLC, ETSY.COM, LLC, BRAVE NEW LOOK, and OUTDOOR
RESEARCH, Case No. GD-20-011704 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cty.,
Nov. 12, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Pennsylvania
Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act.
On March 6, 2020, Governor Tom Wolf declared a disaster emergency
due to COVID-19. Thereafter, Governor Wolf renewed the disaster
emergency on June 3, 2020 and again on August 31, 2020 for a 90-day
period. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue stated that
"[p]rotective face masks that are sold at retail are exempt from
Pennsylvania sales tax during the emergency disaster declaration
issued on March 6, 2020 by Governor Wolf."
According to the complaint, during Governor Wolf's declared state
of emergency, Mr. Ranalli and others similarly situated purchased
protective face masks and coverings from various Pennsylvania-
licensed retailers and were charged an unlawful sales tax on said
purchase. The Defendants represent a fraction of retailers that
failed to comply with Pennsylvania Statutes as they knew or should
have known that, during the state of emergency, "medical supplies"
such as face masks or coverings are nontaxable.
Charging consumers, like Mr. Ranalli and others similarly situated,
sales tax on medical supplies and/or clothing and accessories
constitutes unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive
practices in stark violation of the UTPCPL, the suit says.
The Defendants are licensed retail companies that operate within
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
Kyle H. Steenland, Esq.
J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
The Rubicon Building 201
South Highland Avenue Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Rollman Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHANE ROLLMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN MERCHANDISING SPECIALISTS, INC., a
North Carolina corporation doing business as AMS Retail Solutions,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
34-2020-00283600-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on November
25, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-at-01177 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay employees for all hours worked at
correct rates of pay, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to indemnify, wage statement
penalties, unfair competition, waiting time penalties, and civil
penalties.
American Merchandising Specialists, Inc., doing business as AMS
Retail Solutions, is a company that provides retail merchandising
and marketing services, headquartered in Brentwood, California.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John L. Barber, Esq.
Efthalia S. Rofos, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 545-9200
Facsimile: (714) 850-1030
E-mail: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com
Thalia.Rofos@lewisbrisbois.com
- and –
Armine Antonyan, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Armine.Antonyan@lewisbrisbois.com
AMNEAL PHARMA: Brice Sues Over Carcinogenic Diabetes Drug
---------------------------------------------------------
Marcia E. Brice, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Walmart
Stores, Inc. and John Does 1-100, Case No. 20-cv-13728, (D.N.J.,
October 1, 2020), seeks injunctive and monetary relief resulting
from negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment and violation of
the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. Brice also seeks the creation of a
fund to finance independent medical monitoring services, including
but not limited to notification to all people exposed to
contamination; examinations; testing; preventative screening; and
care and treatment of cancer, resulting, at least in part, from the
exposure to the N-nitrosodimethylamine contamination.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals manufactured, sold and distributed Metformin
containing drugs in the United States. Metformin is a first-line
diabetes treatment. Its generic Metformin was allegdly contaminated
with a probable human carcinogen known as N-nitrosodimethylamine.
Brice was prescribed and used Metformin HCL 500mg ER from
approximately 2018 to 2020. This MCD was contaminated with NDMA.
She claims that she suffered cellular and genetic injury that
creates and/or increases the risk of developing cancer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Honik, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Ste. 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 985-9177
Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com
- and -
George T. Williamson, Esq.
FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR & HOLMES, P.A.
99 Nesbit Street
Punta Gorda, FL 33950
Phone: (941) 639-1158
Email: gwilliamson@farr.com
- and -
Daniel Nigh, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 435-7013
Email: dnigh@levinlaw.com
- and -
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 524-5777
Email: d.stanoch@kanner-law.com
AMTROL INC: Cordero Sues Over Racial Discrimination in Workplace
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaurys J. Cordero, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Amtrol, Inc. and Worthington
Industries, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00431 (D. R.I.,
October 2, 2020), seeks an injunction or other equitable relief, an
award of back pay, front pay, actual damages, full reinstatement of
employment, fringe benefits and seniority rights, as well as other
compensation and/or benefits denied, compensatory damages,
exemplary and/or punitive damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and costs and such other and further relief
arising out of violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, Rhode Island
Civil Rights Act and the Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection
Act.
On or about November 14, 2019, Cordero filed a Charge of
Discrimination alleging race, ethnicity, and/or color
discrimination with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights
and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He
was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Rhode Island Commission
for Human Rights on July 7, 2020. Cordero is a Hispanic male born
in the Dominican Republic. He was was employed by Amtrol since
January 30, 2017 at their facility in West Warwick, Rhode Island.
Cordero claims that Hispanic workers had to endure almost daily
racist remarks in the workplace by co-workers and supervisors
alike. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
Danilo A. Borgas, Esq.
SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
2374 Post Road, Suite 201
Warwick, RI 02886
Phone: (401) 739-9690
Fax: (401) 739-9040
Email: ras@sinapilaw.com
dab@sinapilaw.com
ARCHER DANIELS: Green Plains Suit Moved From D. Nev. to C.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as GREEN PLAINS TRADE GROUP LLC, GREEN PLAINS
INC., GREEN PLAINS WOOD RIVER LLC, GREEN PLAINS ORD LLC, GREEN
PLAINS ATKINSON LLC, GREEN PLAINS CENTRAL CITY LLC, GREEN PLAINS
YORK LLC, GREEN PLAINS SHENANDOAH LLC, GREEN PLAINS OTTER TAIL LLC,
GREEN PLAINS FAIRMONT LLC, GREEN PLAINS HEREFORD LLC, GREEN PLAINS
MOUNT VERNON LLC, GREEN PLAINS MADISON LLC, GREEN PLAINS HOPEWELL
LLC, GREEN PLAINS SUPERIOR LLC, GREEN PLAINS OBION LLC, GREEN
PLAINS BLUFFTON LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, Case No.
8:20-cv-00279, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois on November 23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02332-CSB-EIL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged manipulation of
ethanol prices in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and
tortious interference with contractual relations.
Green Plains Trade Group LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Inc. is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with
a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Wood River LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Ord LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol,
with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Atkinson LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Central City LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains York LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol,
with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Shenandoah LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Otter Tail LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Fairmont LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Hereford LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Mount Vernon LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Madison LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Hopewell LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Superior LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Obion LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol,
with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Bluffton LLC is a company that sells and markets
ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Archer Daniels Midland Company is an American multinational food
processing and commodities trading corporation founded in 1902 and
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Domina, Esq.
DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO
2425 South 144th Street
Omaha, NE 68144
Telephone: (402) 493-4100
E-mail: ddomina@dominalaw.com
- and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Mark S. Hamill, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
New York, NY 11022
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
ARIZONA: Kogianes Sues Over Inmates' Rights
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jensen, et al. The
case is captioned as Michael George Kogianes and Cecil T. Kinkade,
and such other similarly situated individuals, Petitioners v.
Edward Jensen, Warden; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General for the
State of Arizona, Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-02186-DLR-DMF (D.
Ariz., Nov. 12, 2020).
The lawsuit serves as Plaintiff's petition for writ of habeas
corpus.
The case is assigned to Judge Douglas L. Rayes.
Edward Jensen is the warden of Arizona State Prison Complex in
Yuma.
The Petitioners, who are currently incarcerated at the Arizona
State Prison Complex, in Yuma, Arizona, appear pro se.[BN]
BAKER TECH: Stay of Komaiko Pending Rulings in Barr & Duguid Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied without prejudice Baker's
motion to stay the case, RICHARD KOMAIKO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BAKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-03795-DMR (N.D. Call.), pending the U.S. Supreme Court's
rulings in Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, and
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid.
Plaintiffs Komaiko and Marcie Cooperman are named representatives
in the putative class action against Defendant Baker. They assert
claims for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
Baker provides a customer relationship marketing ("CRM") platform
for over 900 cannabis dispensaries throughout Canada and the United
States. It offers software that allows client dispensaries to
collect customer contact information and to send customers text
messages through an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS").
Between February 2015 and December 2016, the named Plaintiffs
visited four of Baker's client dispensaries. After their visits,
they began receiving marketing text messages from the dispensaries.
They allege that they received the telemarketing texts without
providing their prior express written consent in violation of the
federal TCPA and California's UCL.
On April 20, 2020, the Court granted in part Baker and TILT's
motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against TILT for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Fact discovery in the case closes on May
21, 2021 and expert discovery closes Aug. 20, 2021. The last day
for hearing the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is Feb.
25, 2021 and the last day for hearing dispositive and Daubert
motions is Oct. 28, 2021. Trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 7,
2022.
Baker's motion requests a stay of the case until the end of the
Supreme Court's next term in mid-2021. His motion initially
requested a stay of the case until the Supreme Court issued a
decision in Political Consultants and Duguid. On July 6, 2020, the
Court ruled on Political Consultants.
One issue before the Court was whether the government-debt
exception to the TCPA's automated-call restriction violated the
First Amendment, and if so, whether the appropriate remedy would be
to invalidate the call restriction entirely. If the Court had
struck down the call restriction, the Plaintiffs' claims in the
case would have been mooted. Instead, however, the Court severed
the government-debt exception from the remainder of the statute,
leaving the call restriction otherwise intact. Because the
government-debt exception is not at issue in the instant case, the
decision in Political Consultants does not impact the Plaintiffs'
claims. Accordingly, the only remaining issue in the motion is
whether the case should be stayed pending the Court's ruling in
Duguid, an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision in Duguid v.
Facebook, Inc.
At issue in Duguid is the definition of ATDS in the TCPA, and
specifically whether that definition encompasses any device that
can 'store' and 'automatically dial' telephone numbers, even if the
device does not use a random or sequential number generator.
According to Baker, the issue before the Supreme Court in Duguid is
dispositive in the case. It points out that the Plaintiffs'
allegations only accuse its software of sending texts from lists of
customer data, not randomly generating numbers.
While these allegations are currently sufficient to impose TCPA
liability in the Ninth Circuit, Baker asserts that a reversal by
the Supreme Court would eliminate the Plaintiffs' case. However,
Baker is notably evasive on a key fact: whether its software has
the capacity to generate random numbers and call them, regardless
of whether it used that capacity in sending the texts at issue.
Magistrate Judge Ryu opines that it is not clear that a reversal in
Duguid would be dispositive in the case. Baker requests a stay of
a definite period—namely, until the end of the Supreme Court's
next term which will conclude slightly less than a year from now.
The Court granted certiorari on only the definitional issue in
Duguid, rendering it likely that it will resolve the Circuit split
on that issue.
Waiting for a final Supreme Court decision is not similar to
waiting for a decision from a lower court, where further appeals
may render a stay indefinite. However, Baker has not clearly
explained how the issue in Duguid is dispositive. Baker has not
shown or argued that its software is incapable of storing and
producing numbers using a random or sequential number generator.
Instead, it merely points out that the Plaintiffs' allegations do
not suggest that the capacity to use such a generator was used to
send the texts at issue here. It is insufficient.
Under existing Ninth Circuit authority not before the Supreme
Court, the relevant consideration is whether a device has the
capacity to perform as an autodialer, not whether it used that
capacity to send the allegedly unlawful texts. Since Baker has not
adequately explained how the outcome in Duguid is likely to have a
significant impact in the case, it has not met its burden to show
that a stay is warranted at this time.
However, discovery will be restricted to the question of whether
the ATDS allegedly used to send text messages to the named
Plaintiffs had the capacity to store and produce numbers using a
random or sequential number generator. Class discovery is not
permitted. If discovery shows that the device at issue does not
have said capacity, Baker may renew its motion for a stay.
For the reasonsstated, Magistrate Judge Ryu denied Baker's motion
to stay.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4l7o5jx from Leagle.com.
BAKERY DEPOT: Faces Perez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
MAURILIO HERNANDEZ PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAKERY DEPOT SUPPLIES, INC.; CATHY
LEANG; AI NGO; WILTON THAI; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV44624 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
November 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code and the California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for
all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages
owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate records,
failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, and
failure to reimburse for business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a production helper
from December 2017 until July 3, 2020.
Bakery Depot Supplies, Inc. is a supplier of bakery products with a
principal place of business in Vernon, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 956-1111
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit Underway in California
---------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Amitahbo
Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc., et al.
In March 2019, the Company and its subsidiary, Simple Finance
Technology Corp., were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc., et al. Plaintiff claims that Simple and the
Company only permit United States citizens to open Simple accounts
(which are exclusively originated through online channels).
Plaintiff has recently amended the complaint and now also takes
issue with BBVA USA's practice of directing non-citizen applicants
to complete the online account origination processes in a physical
branch location.
Plaintiff alleges that these practices constitute alienage
discrimination and violations of California's Unruh Act.
The Company believes that there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that
conducts its business operations primarily through its commercial
banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama banking
corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The Parent was
organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April, Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was moving to
unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding, the Bank
will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name and be
re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective June 10,
2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to change its
legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc.
The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.
BBVA USA: St. Lucie Fire Firefighters Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that BBVA Securities
Inc. (BSI) continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al.
In October 2016, BSI was named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Southwestern Energy Company, et al., wherein the plaintiffs allege
that Southwestern Energy Company, its officers and directors, and
the underwriting defendants (including BSI) made inaccurate and
misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus
related to a securities offering.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.
The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.
The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.
BIOSCRIP INFUSION: Huber Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON HUBER AND JUSTIN
THERIOT, Individually and on behalf of the Class v. BIOSCRIP
INFUSION SERVICES AND OPTION CARE HEALTH, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02197-NJB-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order providing that this action shall be maintained as a class
action.
The Plaintiffs move this Court for certification of the class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Civil Rule
23.1. The Plaintiffs are salespersons employed by Defendants in
Quarter 3 of 2019.
The Plaintiffs have filed a Class Action suit against Bioscrip
Infusion Services and Option Care Health, Inc. for unpaid
commissions during that period.
BioScrip Infusion Services, LLC The Company offers pharmacy,
skilled nursing, post-acute and cardiac care, anti-infective and
respiratory therapy, and nutrition support services. Option Care
Health, Inc. provides infusion and home care management solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3lJTQ5N at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacqueline Barber, Esq.
John C. Butler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BUTLER, LLC
3939 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 301
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 285-5440
Facsimile: (504) 407-2101
E-mail: johnclaytonbulter@gmail.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Lofton Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
Helen Lofton, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blackbaud Inc., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-05775 (N.D. Ill., September 28, 2020), seeks actual damages,
compensatory damages, statutory damages and statutory penalties, an
award of punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and any other
expense, including expert witness fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of express/implied contract.
Blackbaud manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for the
data obtained by schools and non-profit companies, including
Northwestern Medicine, which maintained Lofton's private
information. In May of 2020, ransomware attack and data breach of
several schools, healthcare, non-profit companies and other
organizations whose data and servers were managed, maintained and
secured by Blackbaud compromised sensitive and personal data from
students, patients, donors and other individual users. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Brittany E. Hartwig, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 214-7900
Fax: (312) 253-1443
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com
BLUE APRON HOLDINGS: Chute Hits Share Drop Over Delayed Deliveries
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Chute and Terry Minshall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Apron Holdings,
Inc., Matt Salzberg, Bradley Dickerson, Benjamin C. Singer, Julie
M.B. Bradley, Tracey Britt Cool, Kenneth A. Fox, Robert P. Goodman,
Gary R. Hirshberg and Brian P. Kelley, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04711, (E.D. N.Y., October 2, 2020), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.
Blue Apron operates an e-commerce marketplace that delivers
original recipes and fresh ingredients packaged as fresh meal-kits.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. and Barclays Capital Inc. are investment banking firms
that acted as underwriters of Blue Apron's initial public
offering.
At the time of the IPO, the Company was experiencing delays at its
new factory in Linden, New Jersey, which would force the Company to
delay new product roll-outs. Blue Apron had already decided to
reduce advertising expenditures in the second quarter of 2017,
which would depress sales in future quarters and that it was
experiencing issues delivering meals to customers on time and with
of the all ingredients, which was hurting customer retention rates.
Because of this, Blue Apron experienced a 47% decline from the IPO
price. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO
39 Sintsink Drive West, 1st Floor
Port Washington, NY 11050
Telephone: (212) 490-9550
Facsimile: (212) 986-0159
Email: ctrinko@trinko.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
Luke R. Kennedy, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
lkennedy@holzerlaw.com
BLUE LAGOON: Simon Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Handymen
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW SIMON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE LAGOON PAYROLL, LLC and DRIFTWOOD
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-82174
(S.D. Fla., November 25, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.
Mr. Simon worked for the Defendants as a handyman on or around May
5, 2020.
Blue Lagoon Payroll, LLC is a payroll company with a principal
place of business in Palm Beach, Florida.
Driftwood Hospitality Management, LLC is a company that provides
solutions-based services for the domestic and international hotel
industry, headquartered in Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
BOB BAKER VOLKSWAGEN: Barba Slams Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Barba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bob Baker Volkswagen and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00034251, (Cal. Super.,
September 28, 2020), seeks penalties and/or damages for failure to
pay all regular and overtime wages for hours worked, failure to
provide meal periods and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements under California Labor Code statutes, as well as
restitution for unfair business practices in violation of Business
and Professions Code.
Bob Baker Volkswagen operates a car dealership where Barba worked
as an hourly, non-exempt mechanic from March 2020 to July 22, 2020.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
- and -
Edward W. Choi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 381-1515
Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com
- and -
David Lee, Esq.
DAVID LEE LAW
515 S. Flower Street, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213)236-3536
Facsimile: (866) 658-4722
Email: David@DavidJLeeLaw.com
BOCCACCIOS RESTAURANT: Faces Perez Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boccaccios
Restaurant, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Hector Perez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Boccaccios Restaurant Inc.; Andrew Kramer; Hamid Sadraie; and The
Landing Grill Inc., Case No. 56-2020-00547028-CU-OE-VTA (Cal.
Super., Ventura Cty., Nov. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.
Boccaccios Restaurant is a restaurant company based in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq.
BRENDAN KELLY: McFarland Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TOMMY McFARLAND, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BRENDAN KELLY, in his official
capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, Case No.
1:20-cv-04145, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois on November 24, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02334-CSB-EIL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by extending the
Plaintiff's registration period for 10 years, once in 2012 and
again in 2019, despite his non-conviction of any violation of the
Sex Offender Registration Act. The Defendant based the extension on
unproven allegations that the Plaintiff failed to register a change
in his residential address. The Plaintiff has not been afforded any
opportunity either before or after the administrative extension of
his registration period to challenge the extension. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
5707 W. Goodman Street
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com
- and –
Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
3612 N. Tripp Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (773) 283-3913
E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net
BROKEN ARROW: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broken Arrow Ranch,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Broken Arrow Ranch, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-09766 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Broken Arrow Ranch is an artisanal producer of high quality
free-range venison, antelope, and wild boar meat.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BUBBA GUMP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Alcazar's ADA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN ALCAZAR, Plaintiff, v. BUBBA GUMP SHRIMP CO.
RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02771-DMR
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Alcazar filed the putative class action on April 21, 2020, alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and
related state laws against Defendants Bubba Gump and Landry's
Payroll, Inc. Alcazar is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using his computer.
Bubba Gump is a restaurant establishment that has restaurant
locations across the United States, including within California.
It operates a website for its restaurants at www.bubbagump.com.
The website offers various services, such as the ability to search
for restaurant locations, buy gift cards and merchandise, and
schedule group events.
Alcazar has visited Bubba Gump's website on multiple occasions with
the assistance of screenreading software, which translates written
web content into an audio format. In order for screenreaders to
function, information on a website must be capable of being
rendered into text.
Alcazar alleges that Bubba Gump's website contains multiple
barriers to using a screenreader, including (1) lack of alt-text
for graphics and images,2 (2) empty links that do not contain text;
(3) redundant links that direct to the same URL address; and (4)
lack of alt-text for linked images. As a result, blind users
cannot access the same content available to sighted users. For
example, Alcazar could not find the location and hours of operation
for Bubba Gump's restaurants and therefore was prevented from
visiting the restaurants.
Alcazar asserts that the website denies visually-impaired
individuals equal access to Bubba Gump's services and therefore
violates the ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. He seeks
to represent a class of all legally blind individuals who have
attempted to access the Defendant's website by the use of a screen
reading software during the applicable limitations period up to and
including final judgment in the action. The subclass of California
users is defined identically but is limited to legally blind
individuals in California. Alcazar seeks injunctive relief
requiring Bubba Gump to make its website accessible to
visually-impaired users, statutory damages, pre-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.
Bubba Gump moves to dismiss all claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because the barriers alleged in the complaint have
been fully remedied.
The World Wide Web Consortium ("W3C") is a private organization
that develops website standards. W3C's Web Accessibility
Initiative publishes Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"),
which are private industry standards for website accessibility
developed by technology and accessibility experts. Though WCAG are
private, unenforceable guidelines, they've been widely adopted,
including by federal agencies, which conform their public-facing
electronic content to" WCAG standards. WCAG 2.1 is the most recent
version of the guidelines.
Alcazar seeks an injunction requiring Bubba Gump to conform its
website with WCAG 2.1. Bubba Gump asserts that Alcazar's claims
are moot because it has already remedied any ADA violations on its
website.
Magistrate Ryu finds that Alcazar and Bubba Gump submitted
competing evidence about whether the alleged violations on Bubba
Gump's website violate WGAC 2.1 standards. The evidence raises a
genuine factual issue about whether the alleged barriers have been
remedied, and this dispute goes to both the jurisdictional
questions and the merits of Alcazar's claim. She holds that it is
inappropriate to resolve the factual disputes at this stage of
litigation, before discovery has commenced.
In addition, whether Bubba Gump's website violates WGAC 2.1
standards is informative to, but not dispositive of, whether it
violates the ADA. Thus, these issues are more appropriately
addressed on summary judgment or at trial.
Accordingly, Bubba Gump's motion to dismiss is denied, the Court
ordered, a copy of which Order dated Aug. 11, 2020 is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4g956rd from Leagle.com. However, the Judge
notes that some of the violations listed in the Plaintiff's
declarations are not clearly alleged in the complaint. Alcazar was
ordered to file an amended complaint that includes the allegations
he made in opposition to the motion.
A first amended complaint dated Sept. 23, 2020 has been filed in
the case, and it is now deemed the operative complaint.
A further case management videoconference is set for December 2,
2020, at 1:00 p.m. in Oakland via Zoom.
CARAMICO 33 CORP: Faces Ammar Employment Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A request for judicial intervention was filed on November 11, 2020,
in the case styled as Christopher Ammar, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quentin Carbone,
Joseph Carbone, and Caramico 33 Corp., Defendants, Case No.
721620/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., December 30, 2019).
The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
minimum wage including all tips kept by the employer, liquidated
damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Freelance Isn't Free Act and New York labor laws.
The case is assigned to Judge Donna Golia.
Caramico 33 Corp. operates a pizzeria in Richmond Hill, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
ANDERSON, KILL, OLICK & OSHINS
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
The Defendants are represented by:
Peter Hanschke
ANSCHKE, PC.
233 Broadway, Ste 2220
New York, NY 10279
Telephone: (347) 766-6602
CHAAC PIZZA: Authorization to Send Notice to Drivers Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Mullen, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated v. Chaac Pizza Midwest,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00893-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
move the Court for an Order:
1. authorizing him to send notice of the pendency of this
action to his similarly situated co-workers:
"all current and former delivery drivers employed at the
Defendants' Pizza Hut stores between the date three years
prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of
the Court's Order approving notice."
2. approving his proposed notices and methods of
disseminating notice;
3. directing the Defendants to provide name and contact
information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14
days of the court's order; and
4. authorizing a 60-day opt-in period.
This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at the Defendants' Pizza Hut franchise stores. The
Plaintiff Robert Mullen alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery
drivers are all employed according to the same terms: they receive
minimum wage minus a tip credit for all hours worked while
completing deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver
Defendants' pizzas, and they are not properly reimbursed for their
delivery related expenses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff claims that these employment terms result in a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. To operate their
business, the Defendants need automobiles to deliver their pizzas.
Instead of maintaining a fleet of cars themselves, the Defendants
require their minimum-wage delivery drivers to supply safe,
functioning, insured cars to use at work.
A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion to Send Notice to Similarly
Situated Employees dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nA5T6m at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Spencer, Esq.
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
CHARLES M. LEE: Faces Chon Lee Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA CHON LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES M. LEE; CHARLES M. LEE DDS, INC.;
JESSICA R. NOVOTNY; ZACHARY SCOTT DRESBEN; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV45291 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., November 25, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and for violations
of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair
Competition Laws including failure to pay appropriate minimum
wages, failure to keep records of total work hours, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a property
manager in Los Angeles, California since November 2016.
Charles M. Lee DDS, Inc. is a medical group practice located in
Bakersfield, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 251-5533
Facsimile: (213) 251-5534
E-mail: thomas@thomasmlee.com
- and –
Barry G. Florence, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BARRY G. FLORENCE
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 232-4969
Facsimile: (213) 232-4890
E-mail: bgf@bgflawoffices.com
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cirillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Cirillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00540, (W.D. N.C., September 29, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid straight-time compensation, unpaid overtime premiums for all
overtime work required, suffered, or permitted by Defendants,
reimbursement of unlawful deductions, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other damages
permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act.
Citrix is a publicly traded multinational software-developing
company that markets and licenses its products both directly and
indirectly through value-added resellers, independent software
vendors, value-added distributors, and original equipment
manufacturers. Cirillo worked for Citrix as as an Inside Sales
Representative at its Raleigh, North Carolina location from
approximately July 10, 2018 to January 30, 2020. Citrix allegedly
did not compensate him for all hours worked, including hours over
forty that were worked in a given workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Phone: (919) 741-8693
Fax: (919) 869-1853
Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com
CLAIR DOLL: Court Dismisses Motion to Strike as Moot in "Thakker"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHARATKUMAR G. THAKKER, et
al. v. CLAIR DOLL, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00480-JEJ-MCC (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Martin C. Carlson entered an order dismissing
motion to strike as moot since the district court has addressed the
class certification issue on its merits.
According to the district court, the case has been referred to the
undersigned to resolve a number of outstanding motions and
remaining claims by individual plaintiff-petitioners. Upon a review
of the docket one motion referred was a motion to strike a
supplemental filing by petitioners which was submitted in support
of petitioners' motion for class certification.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IMuGFh at no extra charge.[CC]
CNB BANK: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Wriglesworth Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA WRIGLESWORTH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CNB BANK, Defendant, Case No. 201102201 (Pa.
Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., November 25, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of contract and violation
of the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's routine policy and practice of
charging its customers, including the Plaintiff and Class members,
multiple overdraft fees for a single payment. The Defendant failed
to abide with its contractual provisions to charge one overdraft
fee for a single item that was returned one or more times for
insufficient funds. In doing so, the Defendant breached its
contractual promises and violated the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.
CNB Bank is a banking services provider with its headquarters
located at 31 S. Second Street, Clearfield, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory S. Spizer, Esq.
Emily B. Ashe, Esq.
ANAPOL WEISS
One Logan Square
130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 790-4578
Facsimile: (215) 875-7712
E-mail: gspizer@anapolweiss.com
eashe@anapolweiss.com
- and –
Jacob Rusch, Esq.
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1804
Facsimile: (612) 436-4801
E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
COCA-COLA: Jones Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHEYENNE JONES AND SARA J. GAST, Individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC. 401(K) PLAN v. COCA-COLA
CONSOLIDATED, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COCA-COLA
CONSOLIDATED, INC., THE CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF COCA-COLA
CONSOLIDATED, INC.; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are Currently
Unknown, Case No. 3:20-cv-00654 (W.D.N.C., November 24, 2020) is
brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to
recover and obtain all losses resulting from the Defendants' breach
of fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiffs, individually and as participants of the Coca-Cola
Consolidated, Inc. 401(k) Plan, bring this action on behalf of the
Plan and a class of similarly situated participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan, against the Defendants beginning six
years from the date this action is filed and continuing to the date
of judgment.
As of December 31, 2019, the Plan had 10,170 participants with
account balances and assets totaling approximately $784 million,
placing it in the top 0.2% of all 401(k) plans by plan size.
Defined contribution plans with substantial assets, like the
Defendants' Plan, have significant bargaining power and the ability
to demand low-cost administrative and investment management
services within the marketplace for administration of 401(k) plans
and the investment of 401(k) assets. The marketplace for 401(k)
retirement plan services is well-established and can be competitive
when fiduciaries of defined contribution retirement plans act in an
informed and prudent fashion.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan and have engaged in, inter alia, the
following fiduciary breaches: (1) failed to fully disclose the
expenses and risk of the Plan's investment options to participants;
(2) allowed unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants;
and (3) selected, retained, and/or otherwise ratified high-cost and
poorly-performing investments, instead of offering more prudent
alternative investments when such prudent investments were readily
available at the time that they were chosen for inclusion within
the Plan and throughout the Class period.
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. manufactures and supplies
non-alcoholic beverages. The Company produces, markets, and
distributes energy and sports drinks, bottled water, tea,
ready-to-drink coffee, and juices. Coca-Cola Consolidated serves
customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 429-5272
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Michael P. Ols, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
mols@sfmslaw.com
aberin@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
COLORED ORGANICS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colored Organics LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Colored Organics LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09762 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Colored Organics offers sweatshop free 100% organic cotton clothing
in a variety of unique styles and colors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
COMPETENTIA US: Kasper Seeks Project Managers' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS KASPER, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. COMPETENTIA US, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-03942 (S.D. Tex., November 19, 2020) brings this collective
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violation of
the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Project Manager
from December 2017 to March 2019.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week.
As reflected in the Defendant's payroll records, the Plaintiff
routinely worked 50 to 70 hours a week. However, instead of paying
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek, the
Defendant paid them the same hourly rate only for all hours they
worked.
Competentia US, Inc. provides professional services in the energy
industry throughout the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Melodie K. Arian, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
marian@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
COMPLETION EQUIPMENT: Galindo Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA GALINDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLETION EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC., RICHARD
PRUDHOMME, and ASHLEY PRUDHOMME-DINSDALE, Defendants, Case No.
7:20-cv-00260 (W.D. Tex., November 19, 2020) brings this complaint
against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay practices
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
October 2019 to October 2020 as a field technician.
The Plaintiff claims that during his employment with the
Defendants, he worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving
the entirety of his regular wages or his overtime at a rate not
less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. When the
Plaintiff complained to the Defendants about not being paid for all
hours worked, the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff by
terminating him.
Moreover, the Defendants did not maintain accurate time and pay
records for their employees, and failed to post and keep posted the
notice required by the FLSA.
Completion Equipment Rental, Inc. delivers and installs equipment
for servicing valves during fracturing operations. Richard
Prudhomme and Ashley Prudhomme-Dinsdale had the authority to hire
and fire CER employees, supervised or controlled CER employee
schedules or conditions of employment, determined the rate or
method of payment for CER employees, and/or maintained CER employee
records. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Tel: (713) 222-6775
Fax: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
CREEK GROUP: Denied Austin Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
------------------------------------------------------
Margot Austin, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. The Creek Group Company and Gary Mosely,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03363 (S.D. Tex., September 29, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, as well as liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Defendants operate as Cactus Cove Bar & Patio and Onion Creek
Coffeehouse Bar & Lounge, restaurants in and near the Heights
neighborhood where Austin worked as a tipped employee when she
worked as a bartender and waiter for the past three years. Austin
claims to have worked over 40 hours a week without being paid
overtime. Creek also made unauthorized deductions from her tips.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Telephone: (713) 223-8855
Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
Email: trang@tranlf.com
service@tranlf.com
CUGURT RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Cruz Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE GOMEZ CRUZ and MASEDONIO QUEVEDO VASQUEZ, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOHAMMAD
GHADRI, CUGURT RESTAURANT, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV44606 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
November 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code and the California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for
all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages
owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate records,
failure to give rest breaks, and failure to give meal breaks.
Mr. Cruz was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher and
delivery driver from December 2013 until May 31, 2019.
Mr. Vasquez was employed by the Defendants as a cook, dishwasher,
and bus boy from 2005 until December 5, 2019.
Cugurt Restaurant is a company that operates a restaurant with a
principal place of business located at 1904 1/2 Hillhurst Ave., Los
Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 956-1111
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
DNATA US: Fails to Provide Spread of Hours Pay, Villar Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
YISSET GARCIA VILLAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING, LLC d/b/a 121
InFlight Catering, and JOHN DOES 1-3, Case No. 613684/2020 (N.Y.
Sup., Nassau Cty., Nov. 25, 2020) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings the case on behalf of a class of all current
and former hourly employees who were employed by the Defendants in
New York and who were not paid spread of hours wages when they
worked in excess of 10 hours as required by the NYLL, during the
six years preceding the filing of the suit up to the date the
Defendants cease, or are enjoined from, the unlawful practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by 121 InFlight Catering at the
Defendants' kitchen located in Inwood, New York, County of Nassau.
The Plaintiff was an hourly employee of the Company from on or
about September 8, 2015 until on or about January 15, 2017.
Dnata US Inflight Catering operates a food preparation kitchen in
Inwood, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Moser, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5 East Main Street
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (516) 671-1150
E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com
DOLGENCORP LLC: Thornton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPAHNIE THORNTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01334-HES-PDB (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 24, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated at least minimum wage for all the time
they worked and overtime at time and one-half when they worked more
than 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff was hired to work as a sales associate for the
Defendant in or around September 2019 where she was paid on an
hourly basis.
Dolgencorp, LLC operates as a discount store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
309 NE 1st Street
Gainesville, FL 32601
Telephone: (352) 244-2069
Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
E-mail: mbirk@gainesvillleemploymentlaw.com
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Smorowski Claims Discount Promo Deceptive
---------------------------------------------------------
JEFF SMOROWSKI, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC. and DOES 1
through 25 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10739 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 24,
2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful and fraudulent business
practices which violate the California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's
False Advertising Law.
Plaintiff Smorowski asserts that Domino's advertisements regarding
its Mix & Match discounted program is uniform, consistent,
distributed, patterned, and is to be equally applied the same --
every Mix & Match advertisement provides the prospective customer
with a discount on the basis of a coupon or discount with the
purchase of two or more items from a designated list of products
which is a price reduction from the standard price for the product
in question.
In carrying out its deceptive scheme, Domino's allegedly uses
advertisements that illustrate the wide variety of products
available to the customer. On the Mix & Match advertisement itself,
Domino's choice of few words is intended to highlight the deal
available to its consumers. Domino's also prompts its consumers to
act now with the use of its wording "ORDER NOW," which indicates
the urgency in ordering and the fact that the Mix & Match deal may
no longer be available in the near future. These type of tactics
employed by Domino's is intended to get an immediate response from
consumers.
Contrary to the Company's representations, warranties, or
statements regarding the discounted price of the products, it
charges consumers more than $5.99 per product under the Mix & Match
deal. On information and belief, Domino's has a pattern and
practice of charging its consumers an amount exceeding $5.99 per
product from the list of categories. Domino's representations,
warranties, and/or statements relating to the $5.99 price per
product pursuant to the Mix & Match deal is false and/or
misleading, the suit says.
Domino's Pizza operates a network of company-owned and franchise
Domino's Pizza stores, located throughout the United States and in
other countries. The Company also operates regional dough
manufacturing and distribution centers in the contiguous United
States and outside the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Glugoski, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
220 Halleck Suite 220
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com
- and -
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 270-2798
Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Video Game Loot Boxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Calvin at PCGamesInsider reports that publishing giant
Electronic Arts is facing yet another class-action lawsuit over its
use of loot boxes in its video games.
As reported by GamesIndustry.biz, the suit has been filed with the
US District Court of Northern California, with plaintiffs Jason
Zajonc, Danyael Williams, and Pranko Lozano accusing EA of using
the mechanic to keep players around.
They alleged that Electronic Arts' patented Dynamic Difficulty
Adjustment - which uses AI to adjust difficulty to keep players
engaged - compels people to spend more money on loot boxes.
Another day, another suit
"EA's undisclosed use of Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms deprives
gamers who purchase Player Packs of the benefit of their bargains
because EA's Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms, rather than only the
stated ranking of the gamers' Ultimate Team players and the gamers'
relative skill, dictates, or at least highly influences the outcome
of the match," the lawsuit reads.
"This is a self-perpetuating cycle that benefits EA to the
detriment of EA Sports gamers, since Difficulty Adjusting
Mechanisms make gamers believe their teams are less skilled than
they actually are, leading them to purchase additional Player Packs
in hopes of receiving better players and being more competitive."
Meanwhile, videogameschronicle.com, in a separate report, relates
that last year, EA released a statement denying that its FIFA games
use Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment mechanisms.
"We would never use it to advantage or disadvantage any group of
players against another in any of our games," it said. "The
technology was designed to explore how we might help players that
are having difficulty in a certain area of a game have an
opportunity to advance."
Responding to the class action lawsuit, an EA spokesperson told
GI.biz: "We believe the claims are baseless and misrepresent our
games, and we will defend."
EA is currently facing separate class action lawsuits which claim
its use of pay-to-win mechanics breaches gambling laws.
The publisher is in the process of rolling out a new in-game
monitoring tool which enables FIFA 21 players to track and limit
the amount they play and spend. [GN]
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Laborers Pension Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn.), Lead
Plaintiffs Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California,
LIUNA National (Industrial) Pension Fund, and the LIUNA Staff &
Affiliates Pension Fund move the Court for an Order:
1. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. appointing the Lead Plaintiffs and named plaintiffs
Central Laborers' Pension Fund and United Food and
Commercial Workers Union Local 655 Food Employers Joint
Pension Fund as Class Representatives; and
3. approving their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as Class Counsel.
Envision was a publicly-traded healthcare company whose largest
business segment, EmCare, provided outsourced emergency department
and hospitalist physician services.
The Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants misled the public about: (1) the underperformance of
certain hospital contracts that EmCare entered into in 2014-2015;
and (2) EmCare's undisclosed reliance on out-of-network billing as
a driver of revenue and earnings throughout the Class Period.
A copy of the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated
Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38XQrwD at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
Jessica T. Shinnefield, Esq.
Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
Christopher D. Stewart, Esq.
J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN
& GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
ETX ENERGY: Byrd FLSA Class Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to N.D. Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as STEVE BYRD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ETX ENERGY, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-01622, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma on November 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00597-CVE-CDL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated oilfield workers for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
ETX Energy, LLC is a company that drills wells for the oil and gas
industry, headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
EVA FRANCO: Kiler Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. EVA FRANCO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05696-WFK-SMG (E.D.N.Y., November 23,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.Evafranco.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to:
lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the
lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and
labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that contain
no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same
Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
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 individuals.
Eva Franco, Inc., is a women's clothing company, with a principal
place of business located at 1704 Hooper Ave., Los Angeles,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Claims Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INTEGRITYMESSAGEBOARDS.COM
v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-05286-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the California Business & Professions
Code section 17200 claim and all requests for equitable
relief in plaintiff IntegrityMessageBoards.com's first
amended class action complaint (FAC); and
2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
motion to seal various portions of the FAC, and associated
portions of the plaintiff's opposition to defendant's
motion to dismiss.
The court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
section 17200 claim and all requests for equitable relief with
prejudice to the extent they rely on past harm but denies that
motion to the extent they rely on future harm.
On August 28, 2018, the plaintiff initiated the instant putative
class action against the defendant. In its original complaint, the
plaintiff alleged a single claim against the defendant for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff
premised that claim on the defendant’s alleged practice of
knowingly misrepresenting to businesses purchasing its
advertisement services the nature and scope of the Facebook users
to whom defendant would deliver a purchasing business's
advertisements.
Facebook, Inc. is an American social media conglomerate corporation
based in Menlo Park, California.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ICzkG7 at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST STUDENT: Brewton BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROXANNE BREWTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Case No.
2020CH04840, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on November 25, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07017 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act including failing to
make a written policy with retention schedule detailing the length
of time for which the Plaintiff's and Class members' biometrics are
stored and/or guidelines for permanently destroying the biometrics;
failing to inform them in writing that their biometrics were being
collected and stored, prior to such collection or storage; failing
to inform in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for
which their biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and
used; and disclosing the biometric information of the Plaintiff and
the Class to third parties.
First Student, Inc., a division of FirstGroup America, is a brand
used by the Scottish transport company FirstGroup for student
transport in the United States, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer Chierek Znosko, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 659-2000
E-mail: jznosko@littler.com
- and –
Jennifer L. Jones, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 372-5520
E-mail: jeljones@littler.com
FORD MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss Class Allegations Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, TAMER
KAHLIL, MARK PREISS, JULIE SNODGRASS, JOHN FARLEKAS, WILLIAM
VINSON, JOYCE JENSEN, DAVID MORRIS, and SCOTT BITTNER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Ford Motor's
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) or in
the alternative to strike nationwide class allegations.
The Court said, "Generally, class actions may continue even if a
state consumer protection statute precludes them, so long as
applying Rule 23 does not abridge, enlarge or modify any
substantive right. Under the controlling Shady Grove opinion, the
inquiry is on whether the state law had a substantive purpose.
While a state law rule may be procedural, it may be so bound up
with the state-created right or remedy that it defines the scope of
that substantive right or remedy, and should not be preempted by a
conflicting federal rule. Having considered the relevant authority,
the Court declines to follow Plaintiffs' cited case law regarding
the inapposite Alabama consumer protection law. Instead, the Court
will join with numerous other district courts, which have found
that the class action prohibition in Georgia's FBPA is substantive,
and thus not displaced by Rule 23. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot
maintain their class action under the Georgia FBPA. The Court
grants Ford's motion on this basis and dismisses the Plaintiffs'
class claims under the Georgia FBPA."
The Plaintiffs bring several causes of action against Ford for
alleged latent defects in various 2005-2019 Ford F-250 and F-350
trucks ("Class Vehicles" or "Vehicle"). These alleged latent
defects involve abnormal wearing and loosening of the Class
Vehicles' suspension components (i.e. track bar bushing, steering
dampener, balls joints, control arms, and/or struts), resulting in
severe shaking and oscillation of the steering wheel. The
Plaintiffs refer to this alleged defect as the "Death Wobble."
A copy of the Court's Order granting in part and denying in part
Ford Motor's motion to dismiss dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/371dOmD at no extra charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Fails to Cover Warranty-Related Repairs, Martin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA MARTIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10365-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12,
2020) arises out of the Defendants' failure to properly identify
and pay for all of the parts and labor that should be covered for
15 years or 150,000 miles, pursuant to California Code of
Regulations relating to partial zero emissions vehicles.
The Plaintiff contends that due to the Defendants' conduct, she and
the Class members are paying out of pocket for repairs that should
be covered under the California Emissions Warranty.
In addition to Ford failing to cover all of the emissions
components that Ford is required to cover under the California law,
Ford fails to comprehensively identify to consumers and factory
authorized repair facilities all of the parts that should be
covered under the California emissions warranty, in order to limit
the warranty coverage for those parts.
The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for, inter alia, all out of
pocket costs paid for repairs that should have been covered under
the law, including, without limitation, the hybrid system water
pump, and an injunction to compel Ford to properly identify and
cover all parts that should be covered.
Mr. Martin purchased a new 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid from Santa
Monica Ford in California. The vehicle came with Ford's new car
warranty, and the California Emissions Warranty.
Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8492
E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
abasser@pomlaw.com
- and -
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
GARRETT MOTION: Husson Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------
Steven Husson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Garrett Motion Inc., Olivier Rabiller,
Allesandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason and Su Ping Lu,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07992 (S.D. N.Y., September 25, 2020),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Garrett designs, manufactures and sells turbocharger,
electric-boosting and connected vehicle technologies for original
equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket. In October 2018, the
Company formed as a spin-off of the Transportation Systems business
of Honeywell International Inc.
On August 26, 2020, before the market opened, the Garret disclosed
that its leveraged capital structure has affected its ability to
gain or hold market share in the automotive supply market and was
made worse by significant claims asserted by Honeywell against
certain Garrett subsidiaries under the disputed subordinated
asbestos indemnity and the tax matters agreement.
On this news, the Garrett's share price fell $3.04, or 44%, to
close at $3.84 per share on August 26, 2020, thereby damaging
investors. On Sunday, September 20, 2020, Garrett announced that it
had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The following Monday,
September 21, 2020, the New York Stock Exchange announced that it
would commence proceedings to delist Garrett's stock from the NYSE
after its disclosure that it had filed for bankruptcy.
On this news, the Garrett's stock began trading over-the-counter
and closed at $1.76 per share on September 22, 2020, a 12% decline
from the closing price on September 18, 2020. [BN]
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
Email: 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
Email: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
GENERAL MOTORS: Siqueiros Fraud Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAUL SIQUEIROS, et al. v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 28, 2021, for an order:
A. certifying the following Classes and naming the following
class representatives with respect to vehicles
manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 by Defendant
that were equipped with GM's defective Generation IV 5.3-
liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine for the following models
and model years: 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche; 2011-2014
Chevrolet Silverado; 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban; 2011-
2014 Chevrolet Tahoe; 2011-2014 GMC Sierra; 2011-2014 GMC
Yukon; and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL (Class Vehicle):
1. Tennessee Class:
"all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that
was purchased or leased in the State of Tennessee."
The Tennessee Class seeks class certification of claims
for: (a) breach of implied warranty of merchantability;
(b) fraudulent omission; and (c) unjust enrichment. The
Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Joshua Byrge as
the class representative for the Tennessee Class.
2. Pennsylvania Class
"all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that
was purchased or leased in the State of Pennsylvania."
The Pennsylvania Class seeks class certification of
claims for: (a) violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. sections 201–1 et seq; (b) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability; (c) fraudulent omission;
and (d) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs move for the
appointment of John Graziano as the class
representative for the Pennsylvania Class.
3. Arkansas Class:
"all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that
was purchased or leased in the State of Arkansas."
The Arkansas Class seeks class certification of claims
for: (a) violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. sections 4-88-101, et
seq; (b) breach of implied 26 warranty of
merchantability; (c) fraudulent omission; and (d)
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs move for the appointment
of Larry Goodwin as the class representative for the
Arkansas Class.; and
4. Idaho Class:
"all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that
was purchased or leased in the State of Idaho."
The Idaho Class seeks class certification of claims
for: (a) violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection
Act, Idaho Code Ann. sections 48-601 et seq.; (b)
breach of implied of merchantability; (c) fraudulent
omission; and (d) unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs move
for the appointment of Gabriel Del Valle as the class
representative for the Idaho Class.; and
B. appointing DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC and Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. as Class Counsel for
all certified Classes.
General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global
headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification
dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/32U1oeJ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams II, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
- and -
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 986-1400
E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
lori@andrusanderson.com
- and -
Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 355-0086
E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com
ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
- and -
Marcus Rael, Esq.
ROBLES, RAEL & ANAYA, P.C.
500 Marquette NW, Suite 700
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 242-2228
E-mail: marcus@roblesrael.com
- and -
Anthony J. Garcia, Esq.
AG LAW
742 South Village Circle
Tampa, Florida 33606
Telephone: (813) 259-9555
E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com
- and -
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
- and -
Ben Finley, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
200 13th Street
Columbus, GA 31901
Telephone: (706) 322-6226
E-mail: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Eric J. Haag, Esq.
ATTERBURY, KAMMER, & HAAG, S.C.
8500 Greenway Boulevard, Suite 103
Middleton, WI 53562
Telephone: (608) 821-4600
E-mail: ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com
GODADDY.COM LLC: $8.75MM Counsel Fees Awarded in Drazen TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN DRAZEN, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant.
JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:19-00563-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern Dsitrict of Alabama, Southern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards.
On June 9, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary class certification and preliminary approval of the
class settlement agreement. Thereafter, Notice of the Settlement
was sent to over 1.26 million potential Settlement Class members.
As of the date of the Plaintiffs' motion, over 15,600 claims have
been submitted, there have been no objections to the proposed
Settlement and only three individuals opted to be excluded from the
Settlement Class.
The Plaintiffs commenced the proposed class action, alleging
GoDaddy.com violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
("TCPA"). Specifically, they allege that GoDaddy violated the Act
by placing calls and sending text messages to their cellular
telephones, marketing its products and services. They allege that
these calls and text messages were sent using an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS"), as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section
227(a)(1) and prohibited by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A).
Further, the Plaintiffs contend GoDaddy's contacts were not made
for emergency purposes and were made using an autodialing system
that did not require human intervention. They also allege that
GoDaddy did not have their prior express written consent to place
the calls or send the text messages.
The Plaintiffs request a common fund fee award amounting to $10.5
million in attorneys' fees. The Class Counsel's requested fee
award represents 30% of the total potential $35 million common
fund, payable from the settlement.
Judge DuBose concludes that the fee should be 25% of the Common
Fund as opposed to the requested 30%. The issues in the case were
not complex and did not require more than the average skill
required of litigation in federal court. Moreover, the results
obtained for the Plaintiffs ($35 dollars or a $150 voucher) do not
justify an award at the high end of the benchmark. The Judge
acknowledges the significant effort expended to reach the
Settlement in the case. Indeed, awarding a 25% rather than a 30%
fee in the case does not in any way indicate that the Class Counsel
has not done exceedingly well in litigatin on behalf of the Class.
If the Class Counsel received a 30% fee, the average rate would be
$1,936.12 per hour, and hourly rate that far exceeds the customary
hourly rate in the legal community. Thus, the Judge finds the
benchmark percentage fee award reasonable and appropriate. The
Judge approved the attorneys' totaling 25% of the Common Fund,
$8.75 million.
The Class Counsel requests reimbursement of expenses totaling
$105,410.51. These expenses include costs related to filing fees,
travel expenses, copying, mediation fees, and case administration
with the potential of more expenses yet to come. The Judge
concludes that the Class Counsel's costs and expenses were properly
incurred and are thus reimbursable. Therefore, the Plaintiffs'
motion as to costs and expenses is granted.
The Plaintiffs request a $5,000 service award for each Drazen,
Bennett, and Herrick. The Defendant agreed not to oppose the
request for such service award. The Plaintiffs represent that no
award of any kind was promised to Drazen, Bennett, or Herrick prior
to commencement of the litigation or at any time thereafter. The
Judge holds that the incentive awards of $5,000 for each Drazen,
Bennett, and Herrick are reasonable considering the services
performed by each for the Settlement Class Members. The amount
will be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms
of the Second Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement.
Based upon the foregoing, Judge DuBose granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs motion for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses,
and service awards.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxwv9dgb from Leagle.com.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss XP Inc. IPO Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities
class action suit related to XP Inc.'s $2.3 billion December 2019
initial public offering, is pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York
Supreme Court, County of New York, and the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of York, filed beginning March 19, 2020,
relating to XP Inc.'s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial
public offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include XP, certain
of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders.
GS&Co. underwrote 19,326,218 shares of common stock in the December
2019 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $522 million.
On August 5, 2020, the defendants' motion to stay the state court
action in favor of the federal court action was denied, and on
August 21, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint filed in the state court action.
On September 14, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint filed in the federal court action.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation related to the sale of
U.S. Treasury securities remains pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the primary dealers named as
defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market
for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017.
The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.
The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.
Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Stay Venator IPO Related Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
defendants' motion to stay the New York state court action related
to the Venator Materials PLC's $522 million August 2017 initial
public offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity
offering, in favor of the federal action has been denied.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District
Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed
beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC's
$522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million
December 2017 secondary equity offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders.
GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August
2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares of common
stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering representing
an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million. On
January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas
District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter
defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for
lack of personal jurisdiction.
On February 18, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in the federal action.
On July 1, 2020, the defendants' motion to stay the New York state
court action in favor of the federal action was denied.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class
plaintiff's March 2019 motion for class certification in the
Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation is still pending.
The Company, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs Bank USA and
Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. are among the defendants
named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading
of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates.
These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The
complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and
state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The
complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state
antitrust law.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and
otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class
action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from
2013 to 2016.
On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims.
On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the
putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations
related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited
allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth
consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019.
The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class
certification on March 7, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Group Inc.
and Goldman Sachs & Co LLC (GS&Co.) continue to defend antitrust
suits alleging conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the
development of electronic platforms for securities lending
transactions.
Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to
securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017.
The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state
antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of
electronic platforms for securities lending transactions.
The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious
interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law and, in the second and third individual actions,
unjust enrichment under state common law.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other
damages.
Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action
on January 26, 2018.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied
on September 27, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the second
individual action on December 21, 2018.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the first individual action was
granted on August 7, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing GoHealth IPO Related Securities Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") has been named as a defendant in a
securities class action suits related to GoHealth, Inc.'s $914
million July 2020 initial public offering.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed on
September 21, 2020 and September 28, 2020 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to GoHealth,
Inc.'s (GoHealth) $914 million July 2020 initial public offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include GoHealth,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders.
GS&Co. underwrote 11,540,550 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $242 million.
A third putative securities class action relating to GoHealth's
initial public offering that does not name the underwriters as
defendants was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on September 25, 2020.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOOGLE LLC: Kober Antitrust Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMOS KOBER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, ALPHABET INC. and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 20CV372225, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on November
25, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-08336 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Competition Law,
and California's common law of unjust enrichment by establishing
parallel monopolies in the general search services and search
advertising markets through exclusionary agreements and engaging in
other anticompetitive conduct to gain control of distribution
channels and prevent competition from rivals.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products,
headquartered in Mountain View, California.
Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justina K. Sessions, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Telephone: (415) 947-2000
Facsimile: (415) 947-2099
E-mail: jsessions@wsgr.com
- and –
John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
Jesse T. Smallwood, Esq.
Benjamin M. Greenblum, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com
jsmallwood@wc.com
bgreenblum@wc.com
GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, Stark Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JARED STARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND LTD.; GOOGLE COMMERCE LTD.; GOOGLE
ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.; AND GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No.
5:20-cv-08309 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2020) seeks to recover the
damages caused by the Defendants' unlawful anticompetitive conduct
in violations of the Sherman Act, the California's Cartwright Act,
and the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.
Google owns and operates the largest app store, Google Play, which
comes pre-installed on almost all mobile devices running Google's
Android operating system (OS). To build this prodigious
marketplace, Google represented that the Android OS would be
maintained as "open" source software whereby anyone could create
Android-compatible products without undue restrictions.
According to the complaint, as the app store grew and as Google's
Android OS became the "must-have" operating software for mobile
device original-equipment manufacturers, Google began to close its
ecosystem through a series of restrictive agreements that were
designed to (and did in fact) deter and eliminate competition in
the market for Android mobile apps and in-app products. This
anticompetitive conduct allowed Google to extract supracompetitive
profits from consumers -- including the Plaintiff and Class members
-- who paid Google directly for mobile apps and in-app content
purchased through the Google Play store.
The Plaintiff have also been harmed by Google's anticompetitive
scheme because: (1) developers set higher app prices due to the
high costs imposed on developers by Google; and (2) app quality has
been reduced as app developers generated lower returns, the suit
says.
Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.
Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, and Google Asia
Pacific Pte. Limited are subsidiaries of Google LLC which contract
with all app developers that distribute their apps through the
Google Play store.
Google Payment Corp. provides in-app payment processing services to
Android app developers and Android users and collects a 30%
commission on many types of processed payments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison E. Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Laura Gerber, Esq.
Matthew Gerend, Esq.
Karin Swope, Esq.
Garrett Heilman, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
mgerend@kellerrohrback.com
kswope@kellerrohrback.com
gheilman@kellerrohrback.com
GREAT SOUTHERN: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTOFOR DeANGELIS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD - LENWOOD, INC., and GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD
PRESERVING, INCORPORATED, Case No. 6:20-cv-06103-SOH (W.D. Ark.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying the following collective:
"all hourly employees of Great Southern Wood – Lenwood,
Inc., or Great Southern Wood Preserving, Incorporated, who
received a bonus in connection with work performed in at
least one week in which they worked over 40 hours on or
after September 17, 2017."
2. permitting him to provide the Notice to potential opt-in
Plaintiffs via email as well as traditional U.S. Mail, and
that this Court permit him to distribute a reminder
postcard via traditional U.S. Mail as well as a follow-up
email;
3. allowing a period of 90 days to distribute the Notice and
file Consent to Join forms; and
4. directing the Defendants to provide the names and last
known telephone numbers, mailing addresses, and email
addresses of potential opt-in Plaintiffs no later than one
week after the date of the entry of the Order granting
this Motion.
The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of all former and current
hourly paid employees for the Defendants who received a bonus in
connection with work performed in at least one week in which they
worked over 40 hours, to recover wages and other damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act (AMWA).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/36Pvb9N at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tess Bradford, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
HANESBRANDS INC: Cota Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hanesbrands Inc. and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01980 (Cal. Super., October
7, 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.
Hanesbrands operates https://www.champion.com/ -- a website that
provides consumers with access to a variety of athletic apparel,
accessories and footwear including information about customer
service, tracking information, delivery and shipping information,
returns, store locations, contact information, sales, various
discount programs, clothing sustainability and career
opportunities. Cota is legally blind and claims that said website
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
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
Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
HAY ADAMS: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAIM SARWAR v. HAY ADAMS HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03234-KBJ
(D.D.C., November 10, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated for injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated
disabled persons and is a "tester" for the purpose of asserting his
civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether
places of public accommodation and their Websites are in compliance
with the ADA.
The Defendant owns a place of public accommodation as defined by
the ADA and the regulations implementing the law. The place of
public accommodation/property that the Defendant owns is a place of
lodging known as The Hay-Adams located in Washington, DC.
The complaint contends that the Plaintiff visited the property's
Websites for the purpose of reviewing and assessing its accessible
features and ascertain whether they meet the requirements of ADA
and his accessibility needs. However, Mr. Sarwar was unable to do
so because the Defendant failed to comply with the requirements set
forth in ADA. As a result, the Plaintiff was deprived the same
services, features, facilities, benefits, advantages, and
accommodations of the property available to the general public.
Specifically, the Websites, which accept reservations for the hotel
online, did not identify or allow for reservation of accessible
guest rooms and did not provide sufficient information for disabled
persons regarding accessibility at the hotel.
Because the online reservations system discriminates against the
Plaintiff, it is thereby more difficult to book a room at the hotel
or make an informed decision as to whether the facilities at the
hotel are accessible, the suit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tristan W. Gillespie, Esq.
THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
5150 Cottage Farm Rd.
Johns Creek, GA 30022
Telephone: (404) 276-7277
E-mail: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com
HERMAN JONES: Shaw Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blaine Franklin Shaw, et
al. v. Herman Jones, in his official capacity as the Superintendent
of the Kansas Highway Patrol, et al., Case No.
6:19-cv-01343-KHV-GEB (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action with the proposed
class of:
"all persons in the United States who traveled in Kansas
on I-70, I-35, U.S. Route 54 or U.S. Route 36 as a
motorist or passenger, were actually or appeared to be
driving to or from Colorado, in a vehicle with license
plates from a state other than Kansas, who were stopped,
detained by the KHP and subjected to searches of their
vehicles or persons by a canine but were not subsequently
convicted of a crime as a result of the stop, detainment,
arrest, or search by the KHP."
Excluded from the class are the Defendants and their
affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers,
agents, and directors. Also excluded are any judicial
officers presiding over this matter and the members of
their immediate families and judicial staff.;
2. appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives
for the proposed class;
3. appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and
4. granting all other and further relief that the Court deems
equitable and just.
The Plaintiffs challenge the the Defendant Superintendent Herman
Jones -- in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the
Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) -- and the KHP's alleged policies,
practices, and/or customs of targeting drivers with out-of-state
plates for illegal stops, detentions, and unreasonable searches of
persons and/or vehicles in violation of constitutional rights and
authorizing and encouraging stops that are unsupported by
individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of
criminal conduct as required by the United States Constitution
("Defendant Jones's Two-Step Travelers Policy").
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/32W3XwT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leslie A. Greathouse, Esq.
Patrick McInerney, Esq.
Madison A. Perry, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 474-8100
Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
E-mail: lgreathouse@spencerfane.com
pmcinerney@spencerfane.com
mperry@spencerfane.com
- and -
Lauren Bonds, Esq.
Sharon Brett, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF KANSAS
6701 W. 64th St., Suite 210
Overland Park, KS 66202
Telephone: (913) 490-4110
Facsimile: (913) 490-4119
E-mail: lbonds@aclukansas.org
sbrett@aclukansas.org
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Sues Over Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------
Edward Scott Gau, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and Brandy Foster-Gau, Plaintiffs, v. Hillstone
Restaurant Group, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20CV371039, (Cal. Super., September 30, 2020),
seeks penalties and/or damages for failure to pay all regular and
overtime wages for hours worked, failure to provide meal periods
and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under
California Labor Code statutes, and restitution for unfair business
practices in violation of Business and Professions Code.
Edward Scott Gau worked for Hillstone Restaurant as a lead server
for 15 years. Brandy Foster-Gau worked for Hillstone as a trainer,
headwaiter and bartender up to June 2020. Throughout their
employment, Hillstone denied them their duty-free 10-minute rest
periods for every four hours worked and did not provide duty-free
30-minute meal periods within the first five hours of work. They
were also denied itemized wage statements that accurately showed
the hours worked, asserts the complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Simon L. Yang, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
sly@diversitlaw.com
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531 -4214
Facsimile: (831) 634—0333
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Wage & Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general,
and BRANDY FOSTER-GAU, as a private attorney General v. HILLSTONE
RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20CV371039, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on November
23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-08250 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide
lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
timely pay wages, failure to comply with itemized employee wage
statement provisions, and unfair competition.
Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. is an American casual dining
restaurant chain based in Beverly Hills, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Greg S. Labate, Esq.
Kristi L. Thomas, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Telephone: (714) 513-5100
Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
kthomas@sheppardmullin.com
ICONIC MORTGAGE: Correll TCPA Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KIRSTEN CORRELL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ICONIC MORTGAGE CORP., Case No.
2:20-cv-00426, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on November 25, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-24858-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited calls and
by sending autodialed text messages to the cellular telephone
numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members despite being registered
on the National Do-Not-Call registry.
Iconic Mortgage Corp. is a mortgage broker based in Miami, Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Robinson, Esq.
ROBINSON GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC
1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350K
Vienna, VA 22181
Telephone: (703) 789-4800
E-mail: william@robinsonlaw.com
- and –
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and –
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
INDIGO FACILITY: Shone FLSA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THOMAS SHONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DANNY SPEARS, individually, and INDIGO
FACILITY PARTNERS, Case No. C-1-CV-20-004863, was removed from the
Texas County Court of Travis County to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas on November 24, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-01168 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labors Standards Act.
Indigo Facility Partners is a company that specializes in facility
maintenance based in Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher C. Wike, Esq.
HAJJAR PETERS, LLP
3144 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 637-4956
Facsimile: (512) 637-4958
E-mail: cwike@legalstrategy.com
IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Myers Seeks 2 Classes in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA MYERS, BARBARA
STANERSON, JOHN EIVINS, LIV KELLY-SELLNAU, CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, and
SHUNA TOSA on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
v. IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00081-SMR-SBJ (S.D.
Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying a "Wages Class" pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23
consisting of:
"all former, current and future health care professionals
and other non-exempt employees who have worked at UIHC,
and who were subject to the policy described above of not
being paid their earned wages within 12 days of the
pay period in which it was earned" since August 19, 2017
(two years prior to filing of the original complaint);
2. certifying a "Termination Pay Class" consisting of:
"all former, current and future UIHC employees who did not
receive their accrued vacation and qualifying sick leave
on the next regular payday after the termination of their
employment" since August 19, 2017 (two years prior to
filing of the original complaint)";
3. appointing Plaintiffs Melinda Myers, Barbara Stanerson,
John Eivins, Liv Kelly-Sellnau, Christopher Taylor, and
Shuna Tosa as class representatives of the "Wages Class";
4. appointing Liv Kelly-Sellnau as class representative of
the "Termination Pay Class;" and
5. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.
The claims in this case are straightforward and involve a challenge
to the uniform wage payment practices of the Defendant Iowa Board
of Regents. The Plaintiffs are two groups of employees who work for
the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics ("UIHC"). The first
are health care professionals, including nurses, who UIHC has
classified primarily as exempt from the overtime pay requirements
of the FLSA. The other group are so-called "blue collar" workers,
such as custodians and clerical workers, who UIHC has classified as
non-exempt or eligible for overtime pay under the FLSA. UIHC pays
both of these groups of employees base wages on the first of each
month for the work performed the prior month.
UIHC employs approximately 3,438 health care professionals that it
classifies as exempt from the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA.
These employees include Plaintiffs Melissa Myers, John Eivins, and
Liv Kelly-Sellnau who worked for the UIHC as nurses, and Barbara
Stanerson, who worked for the UIHC as a physical therapist.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38Tfp01 at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
bjweber@llrlaw.com
- and -
Nate Willems, Esq.
RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C.
P.O. Box 637
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
Telephone: 319-363-5209
Facsimile: 319-363-6664
E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Vrugtman Says Online Dating Process Fraudulent
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSANNE VRUGTMAN and TAMMY GILLINGWATER, individually, and for all
others similarly situated v. IT'S JUST LUNCH INTERNATIONAL LLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-02352 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 11, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's violation of California's consumer protection statutes
and common law claims of fraudulent inducement and fraud.
The Defendant positions itself as a premier dating service,
offering to connect individuals interested in romantic
relationships. On its Website, the Defendant claims to have a
process of "6 easy steps" to match members. IJL claims its service
utilizes a "signature matchmaking process" that the Company has
"fine-tuned over the past 29 years."
According to the complaint, the Defendant continues to engage in
false claims that its highly trained experts offer personalized,
sophisticated, and thoughtful matchmaking services. The Defendant
fraudulently induces single professionals, especially women, into
contracts by promising them that it has multiple matches in its
database. The Defendant's members including the Plaintiffs pay
thousands of dollars for its services only to discover that the
Company either selects matches at random or that it lies about
having other members in their region.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class members are fraudulently
induced into entering into a contract based on the Defendant's
misrepresentation of fact that was material.
It's Just Lunch International LLC provides online dating services.
The Company offers introductory date consultations, dating tips,
matchmaking for singles, and advisory services. It's Just Lunch
International serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John G. Balestriere, Esq.
Matthew W. Schmidt, Esq.
BALESTRIERE FARIELLO
225 Broadway, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 374-5401
Facsimile: (212) 208-2613
E-mail: john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com
matthew.schmidt@balestrierefariello.com
JEA SENIOR: Bowen Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ANNICA B. BOWEN, a.k.a. ANNICA PALACIO,
individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. JEA
SENIOR LIVING HEALTH & WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN LLC, WILLOW SPRINGS
MANAGEMENT CA, LLC, BLOSSOM GROVE, CA, LLC, EMPIRE RANCH
ALZHEIMER'S SPECIAL CARE CENTER, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 2:20-cv-06305, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on November 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02318-TLN-KJN to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, waiting time penalties, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, and unfair competition.
JEA Senior Living Health & Welfare Benefit Plan LLC is a
privately-owned and operated management and development company,
headquartered in Vancouver, Washington.
Willow Springs Management CA, LLC is a limited liability company
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.
Blossom Grove, CA, LLC is a provider of senior living services in
California.
Empire Ranch Alzheimer's Special Care Center is an assisted living
facility in Folsom, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 447-0700
Facsimile: (916) 447-4781
E-mail: bryan.hawkins@stoel.com
- and –
Bao M. Vu, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1120
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 617-8900
Facsimile: (415) 617-8901
E-mail: bao.vu@stoel.com
JOLO INC: Saad FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH SAAD On Behalf of
Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, v. JOLO, INC.
D/B/A HURRICANE BETTY'S, ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-11377-TSH (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of this action and for
court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);
2. approving proposed notice of this action and the consent
and opt-out forms;
3. directing the Defendants to produce names, last known
mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email
addresses, and dates of employment of all putative
plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order;
4. directing herself to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form
via first class mail and email to all putative plaintiffs
of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder
mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to
all non-responding putative plaintiffs; and
5. requiring the Defendant to post the Notice and Consent
Form in a conspicuous location within the dressing room at
the Defendant's Hurricane Betty's Gentlemen's Club or the
full 90-day Notice period.
The Defendant operates an adult entertainment club.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3pEo64s at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
- and -
Michael D. Pushee, Esq.
FORMISANO & CO., P.C.
100 Midway Place, Suite 1
Cranston, RI 02920
Telephone: (401) 944-9691
Facsimile: (401) 944-9695
E-mail: mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com
JOSHUA DAVID: Faces Yoffee Suit Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL YOFFEE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JOSHUA DAVID MELLBERG, LLC d/b/a J.D. MELLBERG
FINANCIAL, Case No. 3:20-cv-02304-CAB-DEB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 25,
2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed the automated
calls and voice messages to the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated without their prior express written consent in order to
solicit their business. The Plaintiff specifically received a
voicemail advertising the Defendant's services and instructing him
to contact J.D. Mellberg for "annuity prospects" related to its
lead database, and noting that the Defendant is a "trusted and
recognizable brand." She received a total of four automated calls
placed via an automatic telephone dialing system.
Through the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered an
invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is
specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA, the suit says.
The Defendant is a privately-owned company founded in or around
2005 that specializes in retirement financial services and annuity
income planning.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, 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
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
- and -
Alex S. Madar, Esq.
MADAR LAW CORPORATION
11510 Eaglesview Ct.
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 299-5879
Facsimile: (619) 354-7281
E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net
- and -
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Telephone: (800) 400-6806
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
JVA INDUSTRIES: Workers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime, Missing Paystubs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grevil Martinez, Alexander Ramirez, and Luis Mart, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JVA
Industries Inc. and Joseph Alfano, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-07977 (S.D. N.Y., September 25, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, spread-of-hours wages, earned wages and
overtime compensation together with liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.
JVA Industries Inc. is a construction company with its primary
offices located in New Jersey where Plaintiffs worked as
construction workers. They claim to have regularly work more than
40 hours per week without being paid overtime and denied wage
statements containing accurate information about hourly rate,
overtime rate and the number of regular and overtime hours worked
per week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, Suite 307
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
KATERRA INC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Susan Hamlin, filing
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
Paul Hanks, filing individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Katerra Inc., a foreign corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-05886-GMS (D. Ariz), the Parties ask the Court for an order
granting joint motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective action and FLSA opt-in class of and approving
form of notice and distribution to:
"the Plaintiffs and the group of those similarly situated
individuals consisting of all current and former Supplier
Quality Managers and Supplier Quality Engineers working for
Katerra Inc. in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area at any
time during the last three years."
The Plaintiffs, former Quality Supplier Managers, filed this action
under the FLSA, alleging that the Defendant did not pay overtime
wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek.
The Defendant denies that it has violated the FLSA in any respect
and contests the Defendant consents to this Court's entering an
Order conditionally certifying this matter as a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for the sole purpose of permitting
court supervised notice to issue to the putative members of the
FLSA Opt-In Collective as to the Plaintiffs' claims that they were
misclassified as exempt and improperly denied overtime wages for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a regular workweek and
establishing an appropriate "opt-in" period.
Katerra is an Japanese funded American technology-driven offsite
construction company. It was founded in 2015 by Michael Marks,
former CEO of Flextronics and former Tesla interim CEO, along with
Fritz Wolff, the executive chairman of The Wolff Co.
A copy of the joint motion to conditionally certify FLSA Collective
Action dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3pEFTZq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
Nathaniel Hill, Esq.
JACKSON WHITE LAW
40 North Center Street, Suite 200
Mesa, AZ 85201
The Defendant is represented by:
R. Shawn Oller, Esq.
Kimberly M. Shappley, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
KEAGLE INC: Campbell Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
-----------------------------------------------
Brandi Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Keagle Inc. and Edward Salfelder Jr.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02271, (C.D. Ill., September 29, 2020)
seeks damages for violations of the mandatory minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally
withholding tips under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Keagle Inc. operates as "The Silver Bullet Bar," an adult-oriented
entertainment facility owned by Edward Salfelder where Campbell
worked as an exotic dancer. She was compensated exclusively through
tips from customers and did not receive payment for any hours
worked at the establishment. However, she was required to share her
tips with other non-service employees who do not customarily
receive tips, including the managers, disc jockeys, and the
bouncer, asserts the Plaintiff. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
Marc Siegel, Esq.
James Rogers, Esq.
SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel. (312) 878-3210
Fax (312) 878-3211
Email: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
msiegel@msiegellaw.com
jrogers@msiegellaw.com
- and -
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 993-5801
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
KEYBANK NA: Conditional Certification of Class Members Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL SHANAHAN, LEVORA
ADDISON, MICHAEL ALAGICH, JAMIE SEROW, ALEJANDRO SOLANO, and LAURIE
KIELBANIA, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated
v. KEYBANK, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-02477-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement
with respect to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 New York, Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, Oregon and Massachusetts Classes'
(collectively, "Class Members") claims;
2. granting conditional certification of the Class Members,
as defined in the Parties' Settlement Agreement, for
settlement purposes;
3. appointing Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Outten & Golden LLP,
and Swartz Swidler, LLC as counsel for the Class Members;
4. approving A.B. Data, Ltd. as Settlement Administrator;
5. approving the proposed preliminary approval Settlement
Notice to Class Members and the proposed distribution
method;
6. directing the Parties to file any timely submitted and
properly completed objections with the Court no later than
7 days after the close of the Opt-Out Deadline;
7. directing the Parties to file with the Court any written
responses to any filed objections no later than 14 days
after the close of the Opt-Out Deadline;
8. directing the Parties to file a motion for final approval
of the Settlement no later than 14 days after the close of
the Opt-Out Deadline; and
9. scheduling a Final Approval hearing at least 75 days after
the Court's grant of the instant Motion.
KeyBank, the primary subsidiary of KeyCorp, is a regional bank
headquartered in Cleveland and is the only major bank based in
Cleveland.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of
the settlement class, dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lH6uT9 at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
jswidler@swartz-legal.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Justin Swartz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25 th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
KNAUF GIPS: Arnold Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON ARNOLD, individually and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03215 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for redhibition and violation
of the Louisiana Products Liability Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
design, manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply,
marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of a defective gypsum
drywall. The gypsum drywall that the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated consumers purchased from the Defendants releases
sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and
carbon disulfide, and other noxious gasses that cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property. Exposure to sulfur
compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants'
drywall can also cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough,
nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or
neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and
omissions, the Plaintiff's home, structure, and personal property
have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the
corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other
gasses being released from the drywall.
Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems
based in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster,
plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a
principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KNAUF GIPS: Burgos Sues Over Corrosive Effects of Gypsum Drywall
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUELO BURGOS, individually and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03200 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence
per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied
warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive
substance, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers allege
that the Defendants are engaged in the design, manufacture,
importing, distributing, delivery, supply, marketing inspecting,
installing, or sale of a defective gypsum drywall. The gypsum
drywall that the Plaintiff and Class members purchased from the
Defendants was unfit for its intended purpose and unreasonably
dangerous in its normal use in that the drywall caused corrosion
and damage to personal property in their homes. The product
releases sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl
sulfide, and carbon disulfide, and other noxious gasses that cause
rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property. Exposure to
sulfur compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the
Defendants' drywall can also cause eye irritation, sore throat and
cough, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs,
and/or neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a
sensitivity.
The Plaintiff's home, structure, and personal property have been
exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the corrosive and
harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other gasses being
released from the drywall as a result of the Defendants' actions
and omissions.
Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems
based in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster,
plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a
principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KNAUF GIPS: Drywall Causes Damage to Property, Feng Hu Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
FENG HU and SIMIN LIU, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03213
(E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability,
breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance,
negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment,
redhibition, and violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law and the Louisiana Products Liability
Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' design, manufacture,
importing, distributing, delivery, supply, marketing inspecting,
installing, or sale of a defective gypsum drywall. According to the
complaint, the gypsum and other components of the product react,
break down, and release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses
from the drywall. The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide,
carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants'
drywall and cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal
property. Exposure to sulfur compounds and the other noxious gasses
emitted from the Defendants' drywall can cause eye irritation, sore
throat and cough, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in
the lungs, and/or neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess
a sensitivity.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and
omissions, the Plaintiffs' home, structure, and personal property
have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the
corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other
gasses being released from the drywall.
Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems
based in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster,
plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a
principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KNAUF GIPS: Foreman Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FOREMAN, individually and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03203 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence
per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied
warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive
substance, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for
their role in the design, manufacture, importing, distributing,
delivery, supply, marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of a
defective gypsum drywall. The Defendants' gypsum drywall was unfit
in its intended purpose and unreasonably dangerous in its normal
use because it releases sulfur compounds, including hydrogen
sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide, and other noxious
gasses that cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property
in the homes of the Plaintiff and Class members. Exposure to sulfur
compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants'
drywall can also cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough,
nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or
neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity.
The Plaintiff's home, structure, and personal property have been
exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the product's
corrosive and harmful effects as a result of the Defendants'
negligence and omissions.
Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems
based in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster,
plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a
principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KNAUF GIPS: Ginart Suit Alleges Distribution of Defective Drywall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GINART and ALICE GINART, individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03216
(E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for redhibition and violation of the Louisiana Products
Liability Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
design, manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply,
marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of a defective gypsum
drywall. The Defendants' gypsum drywall releases sulfur compounds,
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide,
and other noxious gasses that cause rapid sulfidation and damage to
the Plaintiffs' personal property. The sulfur compounds and the
other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants' drywall can also
cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough, nausea, fatigue,
shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or neurological harm
to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity following exposure.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and
omissions, the Plaintiffs' home, structure, and personal property
have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the
corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other
gasses being released from the drywall.
Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems
based in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster,
plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a
principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KNAUF GIPS: Jackson Land Sues Over Sale of Defective Gypsum Drywall
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1329 GUM, JACKSON LAND TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-3210
(E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability,
breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance,
negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' marketing, distribution, and
sale of defective gypsum drywall to the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated consumers. According to the complaint, the
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property. Exposure to sulfur
compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants'
drywall can cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough, nausea,
fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or
neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and
omissions, the Plaintiff's home, structure, and personal property
have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the
corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other
gasses being released from the drywall.
Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems
based in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster,
plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a
principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com
L BRANDS: Allison Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------
DONNA ALLISON, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, on behalf of the L BRANDS, INC. 401(K)
SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiff v. L BRANDS, INC., L BRANDS
SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE L
BRANDS, INC. 401(K) SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN and DOES No. 1-10,
Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-06018-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, November 23, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and
failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have severely breached
their fiduciary duties of prudence and/or loyalty to the L Brands,
Inc. 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan by failing to recognize
that the Plan and its participants were being charged much higher
fees than they should have been and/or failing to take effective
remedial actions. The Defendants failed to scrutinize the going
rates for the recordkeeping and administrative services the Plan
received, and for which participants shoulder the financial
responsibility to the detriment of their retirement savings. The
Defendants have allowed the Plan to pay at least 60% more than it
should have paid for such services if they had engaged in any
modestly prudent approach to ensuring that the Plan's recordkeeping
and administrative fees were fair and reasonable.
L Brands, Inc. is an international company that sells lingerie,
personal care and beauty products, apparel and accessories,
headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.
L Brands Service Company, LLC is a subsidiary of women's apparel
and beauty products company L Brands, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
- and –
Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 429-5272
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
ktang@sfmslaw.com
- and –
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
- and –
James C. Shah, Esq.
Michael P. Ols, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
mols@sfmslaw.com
aberin@sfmslaw.com
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of Las Vegas Sands Corp. shareholders.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
LVS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/las-vegas-sands-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=10898&wire=1
Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE:LVS)
LVS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 27, 2016
- September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/las-vegas-sands-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=10898&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Las
Vegas Sands Corp. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) weaknesses existed
in Marina Bay Sands' casino control measures pertaining to fund
transfers; (ii) the Marina Bay Sands' casino was consequently prone
to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among other issues, the
transfer of customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential
breaches in the Company's anti-money laundering procedures; (iii)
the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against
the Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by
regulatory authorities; (iv) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures; (v) consequently, all the
foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
LASERFORM LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Operators, Wilkerson Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WADE WILKERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LASERFORM LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01739-WCG (E.D. Wis., November 19, 2020) brings this
collective and class action complaint against the Defendant to
obtain relief of their alleged willful violations pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant alongside all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees at the Defendant's Green Bay,
Wisconsin manufacturing facility. The Plaintiff was hired by the
Defendant via a third-party staffing company into the position of
CNC Machine operator approximately from June 2020 to October 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has pay policies and
practices of failing to compensate him and all other hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees for all hours they actually worked and/or work
performed each work day and each workweek as recorded, reflected,
and represented via the Defendant's electronic timekeeping system.
The Defendant allegedly shaved time from the Plaintiff's and all
other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' timesheets each work day
and each workweek for pre-shift, post-shift, and in-shift
compensable work performed, which resulted to the Defendant's
failure to compensate them at the correct and lawful overtime rate
of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
LaserForm LLC is a machinery company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
LEVEL 28 NUTRIDRIP: Olsen Files ADA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Level 28 Nutridrip
LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Level 28
Nutridrip LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09565-RA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13,
2020).
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams.
Level 28 Nutridrip LLC is a nutrient therapy provider in the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 764-7171
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Watson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN WATSON, DANIEL
SAMARGHITAN, ANNMARIE GREENE f/k/a ANNMARIE MOHAMMED, JOSE ESPINAL,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the following
Classes:
-- ATDS Class:
"all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United
States that were sent text messages from Lexus of
Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, stating
"Can I text you regarding maintenance of your Honda
vehicle," or an identical variant thereof, within four
years of the filing of this action";
-- National Do Not Call Registry (NDNCR) Class:
"all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United
States that were sent text messages from Lexus of
Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, whom were
registered on the National Do Not Call List more than 32
days before receiving messages from Lexus, stating "Can I
text you regarding maintenance of your Honda vehicle," or
an identical variant thereof, within four years of the
filing of this action" and
-- Internal Do Not Call (IDNC) Class:
"all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United
States that were sent text messages from Lexus of
Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, stating
"Can I text you regarding maintenance of your Honda
vehicle," or an identical variant thereof, while Lexus
failed to institute procedures to maintain a list of
persons who requested not to receive telemarketing calls,
within four years of the filing of this action."
This action arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiffs filed an initial
Complaint on June 18, 2020 alleging that the Defendant violated
various provisions of the TCPA by sending text solicitations to
customers of Honda of Manhattan.
Lexus of Manhattan sells and services LEXUS vehicles in the greater
New York NY area.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2IHN8yB at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
ea@zemellawllc.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Marano Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as STEPHEN MARANO, on behalf of the individual
and all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC. and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01165807-CU-OECXC,
was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on November 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-02215 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal and/or rest
breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide
accurate wage statements and related penalties.
Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. is an American diversified global
insurance company based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Katherine A. Roberts, Esq.
Beth Anne Scheel, Esq.
Abigail Hudson, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
E-mail: kate.roberts@sidley.com
bscheel@sidley.com
abigail.hudson@sidley.com
LIFELABS: Personal Data Breach Leads to Multiple Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hainsworth at biv.com reports that the medical lab company
that experienced a cyberbreach of 15 million patients' personal
information nationwide is facing multiple class action suits in two
provinces.
Privacy commissioners in Ontario and B.C. revealed last year cyber
criminals penetrated the LifeLabs' systems, extracting data and
demanding a ransom.
LifeLabs CEO Charles Brown said the company retrieved the data by
making payment.
"We did this in collaboration with experts familiar with
cyberattacks and negotiations with cyber criminals," he said in an
open letter released in December 2019.
Now, BC Supreme Court Justice Nitya Iyer Nov. 6 declined to stop
two suits against LifeLabs in B.C. after Ontario Supreme Court
awarded responsibility - or carriage - for Ontario suits to one of
three competing groups of class action law firms.
There are nine proposed actions in B.C. and four in Ontario. One
B.C. suit proposes a single national action.
The judge said the fact that parallel class actions have started
does not make them duplicates of each other
Further, Iyer said, "Although I appreciate that the multiple
carriage motions are inefficient, this must be balanced against the
interests of putative B.C. class members to have their best
interests considered by a B.C. court."
Iyer explained in the ruling that awarding of carriage of a suit to
a law firm or group of firms can result in competition between
firms when more than one class proceeding is brought regarding the
same defendant and the same subject matter.
Legislation allows courts to make decisions on how cases move
forward in a fair and expeditious way.
"When the court awards carriage to one action, it stays the
competing action until certification has been determined," Iyer
said. "If the court refuses to certify the proposed class
proceeding, it may lift the stay on one of the other proceedings."
The privacy commissioners have attempted to release a full report
on the breach but said in June they are being thwarted by the
company.
They said LifeLabs claims information provided to the commissioners
is privileged or otherwise confidential.
As such, the company is seeking a court order to prevent
publication of the full report.
"LifeLabs' failure to properly protect the personal health
information of British Columbians and Canadians is unacceptable.
LifeLabs exposed British Columbians, along with millions of other
Canadians, to potential identity theft, financial loss and
reputational harm," B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner
Michael McEvoy said in a statement earlier this year. [GN]
LIVE AUCTIONEERS: Zheng Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Live Auctioneers LLC.
The case is styled as Peiran Zheng, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Live Auctioneers LLC, a New York
limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-09744 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
LiveAuctioneers is a live auctions marketplace connecting buyers
and sellers of art, antiques, jewelry, and collectibles across the
globe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Javier Luis Merino, Esq.
THE DANN LAW FIRM
372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5
Westwood, NJ 07675
Phone: (201) 355-3440
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: jmerino@dannlaw.com
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Court Preliminarily Certifies Class in Reetz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benjamin Reetz,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the Lowe's 401(k) Plan v. Lowe's
Companies, Inc., Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies,
Inc., Pat Belanger, Robin Bornkamp, Lance Cook, Matthew Eurey,
David Green, Bob Ihrie, Mark Imhoff, Terry Johnson, Angela Kirby,
Janice Little, Tiffany Mason, Colleen Penhall, Stacey Ryan, Kristie
Shugart, Brandon Sink, Gregor Teusch, Jennifer Weber, John and Jane
Does 1-20, and Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., Case No.
5:18-cv-00075-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell
entered an order:
1. preliminarily certifying class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(1):
"all participants and beneficiaries of the Lowe's 401(k)
Plan whose Plan account balances were invested in the
Hewitt Growth Fund at any time on or after October 1,
2015, through the date of judgment, excluding Defendants,
any of their directors, and any officers or employees of
the Defendants with responsibility for the Plan's
investment or administrative functions"; and
2. preliminarily appointing Nichols Kaster, PLLP and
Tharrington Smith LLP as counsel for the class.
3. directing the parties no later than November 13, 2020 to
submit a proposed class notice that includes at least a
30-day period for the preliminarily certified class
members to object to the certification.
4. directing the Parties, within 14 days after the objection
deadline, to either inform the Court that no objections
have been received (in which case this preliminary class
certification order shall automatically become final), or
respond to any such objections (in which case the Court
will rule on the objections);
5. directing class members, in the event that certification
becomes final, that they have no more opportunity to opt
out of the class; and
6. dismissing with prejudice the Defendants Pat Belanger,
Robin Bornkamp, Lance Cook, Matthew Eurey, David Green,
Bob Ihrie, Mark Imhoff, Terry Johnson, Angela Kirby,
Janice Little, Tiffany Mason, Colleen Penhall, Stacey
Ryan, Kristie Shugart, Brandon Sink, Gregor Teusch,
Jennifer Weber, John and Jane Does 1-20.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lFkhK0 at no extra charge.[CC]
MAGGIE DOG: Markham Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Markham, individualy, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Maggie Dog, LLC,
Christopher M. Hanada, Interlude US, Inc., Walmart, Inc., W*E
Interactive Ventures JV, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV37357 (Cal. Super., September 30, 2019),
seeks redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure
to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the
statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated employees,
costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further
relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.
Maggie Dog, LLC produced filmed entertainment for commercial
purposes including "Walmart: Toylab 2.0" where Markham worked as a
crew member on the production from August to September 2019.
Markham claims to be unpaid for all hours worked and was not paid
for all overtime hours worked at the correct rate. Because Markham
carried a two-way radio most of the time, he was not able to avail
of his meal breaks, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Gray is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
David Garrett, Esq.
Min Ji Gal, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Ave., 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (323) 962-3777
Fax: (323) 962-3004
Email: harrisa@harrisanddruble.com
dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
mgal@harrisanddruble.com
MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE: Glynn ERISA Suit Wins Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNEST J. GLYNN, et al. v.
MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE SUPPLY CO., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00176-NT
(D. Maine), the Hon. Judge Nancy Torresen entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Judge Torresen concludes that the existence of the DOL Action does
not render a 23(b)(3) class action an inferior method of
adjudicating this case. Seeing no other reason why the Plaintiffs'
proposed class does not satisfy the superiority requirement, he
conclude that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class
should be certified as consisting of the following:
"all Maine Oxy employees who participated in the company ESOP
and who sold their shares back to Maine Oxy after the
Albistons sold their 51% interest in the company."
This case concerns a dispute surrounding an employee stock
ownership plan ("ESOP") at Maine Oxy-Acetylene Supply Company
("Maine Oxy"), a supplier of welding equipment and industrial and
specialty gases at retail locations across New England.
Albiston family, the sole shareholders of Maine Oxy, established
the ESOP to allow employees to "share in the growth and profits of
[Maine Oxy] and to enable them to save and invest in accordance
with the" ESOP.
The Plaintiffs -- Ernest Glynn, Jeffrey MacDonald, Doug Johnson,
and Joshua Richardson -- are four former employees of Maine Oxy,
who participated in the company's ESOP. The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants did not inform them of the price at which they were
repurchasing the company's shares or the number of shares each
employee owned. The only information that they received was the
amount of their lump sum payout. The Plaintiffs also allege that
they were unaware of the price per share that Guerin and Gentry had
paid to acquire the majority of the company in 2012.
The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in April of 2019 alleging that
the Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). The Defendants filed a partial motion for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiffs could not seek punitive
damages under ERISA. In their response to the motion, the
Plaintiffs conceded that the Defendants were correct and filed
their First Amended Complaint (FAC). Thereafter, the Plaintiffs
moved for leave to file the SAC. Over the Defendants' objections,
the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file the SAC, which is
now the operative Complaint. Finally, the Plaintiffs filed the
pending motion to certify a class defined
as follows:
"all Maine Oxy employees who participated in the company ESOP
and who sold their shares back to Maine Oxy after [the
Albistons] sold [their] 51% interest in the company."
The SAC alleges that Defendants Maine Oxy, Guerin, and Gentry
breached the fiduciary duties that they owed to ESOP
participants."
A copy of the Court's Order on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/35KbZLr at no extra charge.[CC]
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ch. 11 Cases Closed UAP&P Local 322 Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the court ordered
the putative class action suit initiated by the United Association
of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern New Jersey,
administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11
Cases.
In November 2019, the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters
Local 322 of Southern New Jersey filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company and other defendants in New Jersey
state court on behalf of New Jersey and third party payers for
alleged deceptive marketing and anti-competitive conduct related to
the sale and distribution of Acthar Gel.
The complaint asserts claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, the New Jersey Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy/aiding and abetting and unjust
enrichment.
The proposed class is defined as "All third-party payors and their
beneficiaries (1) who are current citizens and residents of the
State of New Jersey, and (2) who, for purposes other than resale,
purchased or paid for Acthar Gel from August 27, 2007 through the
present."
In January 2020, after removing the complaint to federal court in
New Jersey, the Company moved to dismiss or stay the case.
On August 18, 2020 the court dismissed all claims against the
Company other than Local 322's antitrust claim relating to the
former owner of Acthar Gel's acquisition of Synacthen.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and
moved to dismiss the complaint in June 2020.
At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the
expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this
lawsuit.
On October 14, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively
closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Marietta Putative Class Suit Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the court ordered
the putative civil class action suit City of Marietta v.
Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, administratively closed in light of the
Company's Chapter 11 Cases.
In February 2020, the City of Marietta, Georgia filed a putative
civil class action complaint against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia relating to the
price of Acthar Gel.
The complaint, which pleads one claim for unjust enrichment,
purports to be brought on behalf of third-party payers and their
beneficiaries as well as people without insurance in the U.S. and
its Territories who paid for Acthar Gel from four years prior to
the filing of the complaint until the date of trial.
The case is proceeding as City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC.
Marietta alleges that it has paid $2 million to cover the cost of
an Acthar Gel prescription of an employee and that the Company has
been unjustly enriched as a result.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and
has moved to dismiss the complaint. The Company's motion to dismiss
remains pending.
On October 16, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively
closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend Shaver Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Laura
Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No. VLC-S-S-205793.
On June 1, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Mallinckrodt plc, Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, the Canadian Ministry of
Health and the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, captioned Laura Shaver v.
Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No. VLC-S-S-205793.
The action purports to be brought on behalf of any persons (1)
prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British
Columbia after March 1, 2014, (2) covered by Pharmacare Plan C
within British Columbia who were prescribed Methadose for opioid
agonist treatment after February 1, 2014, (3) who transitioned from
compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in
British Columbia after March 1, 2014, or (4) covered by Pharmacare
Plan C within British Columbia who were transitioned from
compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment
after February 1, 2014.
The suit generally alleges that the Province's decision to grant
Methadose coverage under Pharmacare Plan C and remove compounded
methadone from coverage under Pharmacare Plan C had adversely
affected those being treated for opioid use disorder.
The suit asserts that the Province, the College and the
Mallinckrodt defendants failed to warn patients about, and made
false representations concerning, the efficacy of Methadose and the
risks of switching from compounded methadone to Methadose.
The suit seeks general, special, aggravated, punitive and exemplary
damages in an unspecified amount, costs and interest and injunctive
relief against the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt
defendants.
Pursuant to two orders granted by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Commercial List) on October 15, 2020, the Chapter 11
proceedings commenced by Mallinckrodt plc and Mallinckrodt Canada
ULC pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were recognized and given
effect in Canada.
Among other things, the Canadian Court has stayed all proceedings
against the Mallinckrodt defendants, including the British Columbia
class action proceedings.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA FRANKIEWICZ and
RUTH PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Individuals, v. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK, INC., and CNTP MCB,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05157-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order:
1. certifying a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 on behalf
of:
"all persons who purchased sperm from Manhattan Cryobank,
Inc. after November 1, 2014 but before June 5, 2018 that
was donated to Manhattan Cryobank, Inc. prior to November
1, 2014"; and
2. appointing themselves as Class representatives and
Steckler Wayne Cochran PLLC as Class Counsel.
Manhattan CryoBank is a tissue bank with a large and diverse
selection of rigorously screened tissue donors.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3f8PrqH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Rd. Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: 972-387-4040
Facsimile: 972-387-4041
E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com
krogers@swclaw.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Barnes FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE BARNES and PAIGE
STROMAN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Maryland, Case No. 8:20-cv-03205-PX (D. Md.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
overtime wages under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of:
"all current and former hourly customer service
representatives (CSRs) who worked for Marriott
International, Inc. in the United States at any time in
the past three years (the "FLSA Collective");
2. requiring the Defendant to identify all putative members of
the FLSA Collective by providing a list of their names,
last known addresses, dates and location of employment,
phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and
importable format within 14 days of the entry of the
order;
3. permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send Court-approved
Notice of this action to putative members of the FLSA
Collective via U.S. Mail, email and text message; and
4. approving a 60-day opt-in period from the date the Court-
approved Notice is sent during which putative FLSA
Collective members may join this case by returning their
written consents, with one reminder email sent 30 days
into the opt-in period to anyone who at that point has not
yet opted into the action.
The Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiff worked in three different
call centers. The Plaintiff Stroman worked in San Antonio, Texas;
the Plaintiff Barnes worked in Austin, Texas; and Opt-in Plaintiff
Arrington worked in Solon, Ohio. Despite working in three different
call centers, both Plaintiffs have provided declaration testimony
that they used the exact same computer programs in carrying out
their job duties as CSRs. Specifically, those computer programs
were as follows: Windows (operating system), Avaya, Sales Force (or
Pure), Passkey, Outlook, reservations notes, Excel, web-based
Marriot Global Systems (MGS), and Webstation.
The Defendant offers hotel/lodging services across the country.
According to Defendant's Website, it offers the most powerful
portfolio of hotels in the industry, with over 30 brands and more
than 7,000 properties across 131 countries and territories.
The Defendant is headquartered in Maryland, but operates call
centers across the country.
The Defendant employed CSRs to provide customer service to its
customers in brick-and-mortar call centers across the country.
Regarding Defendant's call centers, the Defendant boosts that
Marriott has a "superior reputation for customer service."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/32SEgxu at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, Michigan 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
crash@sommerspc.com
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Aronstein Appeals Judgment to 1st Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jesse Aronstein filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jesse Aronstein, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Massachusetts Mutual
Life Insurance Co. and C.M. Life Insurance Company, Case No.
3:15-cv-12864-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Springfield.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' bait
and switch scheme, specifically by advertising, marketing, and
selling fixed annuities and receiving and retaining funds, on the
basis that they had a Minimum Guaranteed Interest Rate, but then
unilaterally reducing that rate below the guaranteed rate.
On November 12, 2020, Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order
denying Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.'s motion for
reconsideration. The exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's
opposition reaffirm the court's conclusion that the parties'
agreement as to the form of judgment was informal, as does a review
of the transcript of the November 3, 2020 hearing, at which
Defendant's counsel declined to press for specific enforcement of
the agreement but instead argued it would be "entirely fair for the
court to hold plaintiff to his agreement." In addition, as the
Plaintiff argues, the Defendant had never made its argument
regarding equitable relief prior to the parties' simultaneous
briefs on prejudgment interest. Thus, given the Defendant's
last-minute attempt to use the form of judgment against Plaintiff,
the court finds Plaintiff had good cause to seek to walk away from
that informal agreement after its legal implications (under
Defendant's theory) became clear.
The appellate case is captioned as Aronstein v. Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No. 20-2103, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The appellate briefing schedule states that the Appearance form,
Docketing Statement and Transcript Report/Order form are due on
December 4, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JESSE ARONSTEIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kevin B. Love, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE PA
7301 SW 57th Ct Suite 515
Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com
- and -
Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Seaport East, 2 Seaport Ln
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com
astewart@shulaw.com
- and -
Timothy J. O'Connor, Esq.
The Law Office Of Timothy J. O'Connor
29 Wards Ln
Albany, NY 12204
Telephone: (518) 426-7700
E-mail: tjo@tjolaw.com
Defendants-Appellees MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:
Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
Eric S. Mattson, Esq.
Stephen W. McInerney, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1 S Dearborn St., Ste 3200
Chicago, IL 60603-0000
Telephone: (312) 853-7000
E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com
emattson@sidley.com
smcinerney@sidley.com
- and -
Jodi Kim Miller, Esq.
John P. Pucci, Esq.
BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
1500 Main St., Suite 2700
Springfield, MA 01115-5507
Telephone: (413) 272-6249
E-mail: jmiller@bulkley.com
jpucci@bulkley.com
MEIJI RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. of Cleaners Class Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUADALUPE COMONFORT
PASTRANA and RODRIGO NERI-BELTRAN v. MEIJI RESTAURANT, LLC, CAI
HUANG, and QIN YUN WU, Case No. 20-cv-470 (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification;
2. directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs the names
and most recent known addresses of:
"all non-tipped employees paid on a weekly or monthly
basis that it employed at Meiji Restaurant in the last
three years within 21 days of this order"; and
3. directing the Counsel for Plaintiffs to send notice to
these current and former employees as proposed, in both
English and Chinese. The Plaintiffs shall docket a
Chinese-language version for purposes of the record. The
parties are to confer and submit new proposed deadlines
for discovery, if necessary, and motions for final
certification/decertification and summary judgment.
The Court said, "At this stage, the Plaintiffs need only make "a
modest factual showing" that they and potential class members were
"victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." The
Plaintiffs offer a declaration from Plaintiff Pastrana and a copy
of the Defendants' payroll records for 2019. The Plaintiffs also
put forward a selection of the Defendant's payroll records, which
they argue shows that other Meiji employees are similarly situated,
i.e., underpaid with respect to hourly rates for overtime. Judge
Adelman agrees with the Plaintiffs. Their interpretation of
Defendants' pay sheet and the deductions applied to the named
plaintiffs and others is reasonable and persuasive enough at this
stage, he said."
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Meiji Cuisine in Waukesha.
While at Meiji, the Plaintiffs worked as non-tipped cleaning staff,
responsible for washing dishes, mopping floors, and garbage
removal. The Plaintiffs allege that they were required to work six
days per week, from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., with an hour break that was
not fully taken sometimes. The Plaintiffs were paid monthly wages
subject to reduction if they worked fewer than six days during any
week and did not make up for the missed time by performing
additional work. The Plaintiffs allege that their monthly wages
were often insufficient for their average hourly wage for that
month to reach the minimum wage, nor did they ever receive an
overtime premium rate, regardless of the number of hours worked,
says the complaint.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Pk1EB at no extra charge.[CC]
MEP NATIONWIDE: Faces Saylor Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS SAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. MEP NATIONWIDE, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-02825-SHM-CGC (W.D. Tenn., Nov. 13, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay the Plaintiff other similarly situated employees minimum wages
and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a plumber in or around
August 2018.
MEP Nationwide, LLC is a commercial contractor providing plumbing
services across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason J. Yasinsky, Esq.
NAHON, SAHAROVICH & TROTZ, PLC
488 S. Mendenhall
Memphis, TN 38117
Telephone: (901) 683-7000
E-mail: jyasinsky@nstlaw.com
METRODATA: 1681c Class Granted, 1681k Class Denied in "Wentworth"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WENTWORTH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. METRODATA SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00594-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey W. Crawford entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Certify Class
with respect to the section 1681c class:
"all persons within the United States (including all
territories and other political subdivisions of the United
States): (a) who were the subject of a consumer report
furnished by Metrodata from June 29, 2015 through the
present; and (b) whose report contained any public record
of criminal arrest, charge, information, indictment or
other adverse item of information other than records of
actual conviction of a crime, which antedated the report
by more than 7 years"; and
2. denying the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Certify Class
with respect to the section 1681k class.
"all persons within the United States (including all
territories and other political subdivisions of the United
States) who were the subject of a consumer report
furnished by Metrodata from June 29, 2015 through the date
of certification and whose report contained any public
record of criminal arrest, charge, information, indictment
or other adverse information."
-- The Section 1681c Class
The Court said, "The Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of individuals who were subject to a consumer
report furnished by Metrodata between June 29, 2015 and
the time of class certification and whose reports
contained adverse nonconviction information that
antedated the report by more than seven years. The
Plaintiff has identified 109 individuals, besides
himself, who meet these criteria and form the putative
section 1681c. The The Plaintiff's definition of the
section 1681c class uses objective criteria to identify
its members. The Plaintiff has identified at least 110
members of the putative class. Consequently, the court
deems the section 1681c class ascertainable. The court
concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied the
numerosity requirement for the proposed section 1681c
class. The court concludes that the proposed section
1681c class action satisfies the superiority
requirement of Rule 23. Because the proposed class
meets all of the Rule 23 prerequisites of
certification, the court grants the Plaintiff's motion
to certify the section 1681c class.
-- The Section 1681k Class:
The Second Circuit has recognized that [c]ommon issues
-- such as liability -- may be certified, consistent
with Rule 23, even where other issues -- such as
damages -- do not lend themselves to classwide proof.
The same principle holds true for individual defenses.
Nevertheless, such individual issues are factor[s] that
we must consider in deciding whether issues susceptible
to generalized proof outweigh individual issues, even
though standing alone, [they are not] sufficient to
defeat class certification, says the Court. A
plaintiff's failure to establish that common proof
regarding the elements of the asserted claims would
predominate, is sufficient to warrant a denial of the
motion for class certification, the Court added.
In 2017, the Plaintiff Jason Wentworth sued the Defendant Metrodata
Services, Inc., alleging that Metrodata violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), when it provided a consumer report about the
Plaintiff to a prospective employer. In 2019, the Plaintiff filed a
motion seeking to certify two classes under section 1681c and
section 1681k of Title 15. Finding the record insufficient to
support a determination on whether either proposed class satisfied
the certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), the court
denied the Plaintiff's motion without prejudice and extended
discovery on the issue of class certification for an additional 90
days.
The extended discovery period concluded in early February 2020. The
Plaintiff has filed a Renewed Motion to Certify Class in which he
once again seeks to certify classes under section 1681c and section
1681k. The Defendant once again opposes class certification and
argues that, despite the allowance for additional discovery,
Plaintiff still fails to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the proposed classes meet the requirements of Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).
A copy of the Court's Order on renewed motion for class
certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at at no extra charge.[CC]
MEYER DISTRIBUTING: Rocero Wage & Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ANDREW ROCERO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MEYER DISTRIBUTING, INC., and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2020-0007755, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on November 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02325-JAM-DB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California's
Business and Professions Code including physical disability
discrimination, failure to pay minimum wage compensation, failure
to pay overtime & double-time compensation, failure to maintain
time records, provide itemized statements, failure to pay all wages
due upon discharge, unlawful business practices, and unfair
business practices.
Meyer Distributing, Inc. is a company that markets and distributes
automotive specialty products, headquartered in Jasper, Indiana.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Martin, Esq.
Brittany A. Vulcan, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104-2872
Telephone: (415) 362-2580
Facsimile: (415) 434-0882
E-mail: Jonathan.Martin@lewisbrisbois.com
Brittany.Vulcan@lewisbrisbois.com
MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Approves Stipulated Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SINGLETON, et al.
v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00099-WKW-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
that:
-- if either Plaintiffs or the City object to the court's
proposed order, the objecting party shall show cause, in
writing, on or before November 23, 2020, as to the
specific nature of the objection and shall provide
citation to any legal authority supporting the objection;
and
-- if no objection to the court's proposed order exists, then
Plaintiffs and the City shall file a Notice on or before
November 23, 2020, indicating as much.
On September 16, 2020, Jonathan Singleton, Ricky Vickery, and Micki
Holmes and the City of Montgomery, Alabama City filed a Joint
Motion to Approve their Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
In their motion, the Plaintiffs and the City ask the court to
retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims against the City only, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38UcF2O at no extra charge.[CC]
MORGAN & MORGAN: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Sloatman Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LALA SLOATMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN & MORGAN MASS TORT LITIGATION GROUP,
PLLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-10670 (C.D. Cal., November 23, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the cellular
phone numbers of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt
to promote or sell its services without prior express consent in
violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.
Morgan & Morgan Mass Tort Litigation Group, PLLC is a litigation
firm doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Root Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DAVID ROOT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC dba
NFI INDUSTRIES, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. RIC2003109, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State California in and for
the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on November 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02452 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to
pay wages upon separation of employment and within the required
time, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and unfair
business practices.
National Distribution Centers, LLC, d/b/a NFI Industries, is a
provider of transportation and logistics services, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua J. Cliffe, Esq.
Carina Novell, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-1940
Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
E-mail: jcliffe@littler.com
cnovell@littler.com
- and –
Britney N. Torres, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 830-7200
Facsimile: (916) 561-0828
E-mail: btorres@littler.com
NEOVASC INC: Faces Siple Suit Over 42% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SIPLE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NEOVASC INC., FRED COLEN, and CHRISTOPHER CLARK, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09948 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020) seeks to recover
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 a class
consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Neovasc securities between October 10, 2018 and October
27, 2020, inclusive.
In December 2018, the Company filed a Q-Sub submission to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration that contained safety and efficacy
results from Neovasc's clinical studies, as well as supporting data
from peer-reviewed journals, involving its Reducer, a medical
device that treats refractory angina by altering blood flow in the
heart's circulatory system. On February 20, 2019, Neovasc
announced that, despite "Breakthrough Device Designation," the FDA
review team recommended that the Company collect further pre-market
blinded data prior to submitting a Pre-Market Approval
application.
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 that: (i) Neovasc had
overstated the viability of U.S. approval of the Reducer based on
its "Breakthrough Device Designation" and prior studies supporting
the Reducer's efficacy and safety; (ii) the results of Neovasc's
clinical studies used to support approval for the Reducer in the
U.S. contained imbalances in missing information present in the
control group versus the treatment group, including significant
missing information for secondary endpoints but none for the
primary endpoint; (iii) the imbalance in missing information
indicated that control subjects were aware of their treatment
assignment (not blinded) and less inclined to participate in
additional data collection; (iv) blinding is critical when studying
a placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (v) the lack of
blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret; (vi) as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require additional premarket clinical data;
(vii) as a result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely to be
approved without additional clinical data; and (viii) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
announced that an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against
the safety and effectiveness of the Reducer. The panel noted
concerns with the Company's clinical data, including "that the lack
of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret." As a result, the panel reached a consensus "that
additional premarket randomized clinical data was necessary."
On this news, the Company's common share price fell $0.77 per
share, or 42%, to close at $1.06 per share on October 28, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume, the suit says.
Neovasc is a British Columbia-based specialty medical device
company that develops, manufactures, and markets products for
cardiovascular diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: 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
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Jones Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryant Jones, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New York Health Care, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-08076 (S.D. N.Y., September 30, 2020), seeks to recover
all available damages, including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages and spread of hours pay, compensation for not
receiving notices and wage statements, liquidated damages, other
damages including punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs of
the action pursuant to New York labor laws.
New York Health Care is in the business of providing health care
services where Jones worked as a manual worker doing a variety of
physical and repetitive tasks including, lifting, packing, filing
and driving throughout his workday. He claims to have rendered in
excess of 40 hours a week, all without overtime pay and an extra
hour of pay for each day in which they worked a spread of hours in
excess of 10 hours. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Tel: (718) 740-1000
Fax: (718) 740-2000
E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Malo Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D. Ariz.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DOUGLAS MALO, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NIKOLA CORPORATION DBA NIKOLA
MOTOR COMPANY, TREVOR MILTON and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-02168, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona on November 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Arizona assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02237-DLR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Unfair Business Practices Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act by misleading the Plaintiff and Class members that their
electric trucks are functional for them to purchase the Defendants'
common stocks.
Nikola Corporation, d/b/a Nikola Motor Company, is a zero-emissions
transportation and infrastructure solution provider based in
Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
NOR-CAL VENTURE: Diosdado Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Cara Diosdado, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NOR-CAL Venture Group, Inc.,
Varris Management, Inc., Yadav Enterprises, Inc., Anil Yadav and
Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0008242 (Cal.
Super., October 1, 2020), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal
and rest period premiums and derivative penalties for inaccurate
wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code, Business
and Professions Code and Wage Orders and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Defendants own and operate restaurants throughout California doing
business as "Jack in the Box," where Diosdado worked at their
location in Elk Grove, California. She claims to typically work
over eight hours per day without being for all hours worked.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
Renald Konini, Esq.
Jessica L. Hart, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: (916) 525-0716
Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
OFFERUP INC: Conner Claims Website not Blind-accessible
-------------------------------------------------------
Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Offerup Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-04639 (E.D. N.Y., September 30, 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.
Offerup operates "Offerup.com" which provides a
consumer-to-consumer marketplace which facilitates the transfer of
goods between parties. Consumers can view, make monetary offers,
and buy directly from manufacturers or from other person's goods
such as automobiles, furniture, appliances, clothing, shoes, and
other products, among other features. Conner is legally blind and
claims that said applications does not contains accessibility
options for those who are vision-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel. (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
ONE PLANET OPS: Loftus Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
William Loftus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. One Planet Ops, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08876 (C.D. Cal., September 28, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
One Planet Ops operates as "Buyerlink." It called Loftus' cellular
telephone number in an attempt to promote its clients' products
using an "automatic telephone dialing system." [BN]
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
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Zlotky Files Suit v. Trustees
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE TRUSTEES OF
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, et al. The case is styled as Reid Zlotky, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE TRUSTEES
OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY doing business as: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 3:20-cv-16622-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., Nov. 19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The Trustees of Princeton University is a 40-member board
responsible for managing Princeton University's endowment, real
estate, instructional programs, and admission.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Joseph Kocher, Esq.
MCOMBER, MCOMBER AND LUBER
39 E. Main Street
Martlon, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 985-9800
Email: cjk@njlegal.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bid to Certify June 10 Summary Judgment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID M. RODRIGUEZ v. THE
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-22652-KMW (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion to certify the Court's June 10, 2020 summary
judgment order for interlocutory appeal.
The Court concludes that certification of the Order for
interlocutory appeal will not materially advance the resolution of
this case. Here, discovery has been completed, dispositive motions
have been decided, and the case will be trial-ready as soon as the
motion for class certification is resolved. In light of the
advanced posture of this case, this factor weighs against
certification. P&G may seek appellate review after the entry of a
final judgment, the Court says.
The Plaintiff is a DACA recipient with legal work authorization. In
2013, he applied for a twelve-week finance and accounting
internship at Procter and Gamble (P&G). This action arises out of
P&G’s rejection of his application due to its hiring policy for
non-citizens. In 2013, through an online screening questionnaire,
P&G automatically rejected at the first step of the application
process all non-citizen applicants except for legal permanent
residents, asylees, and refugees.
The Plaintiff initiated a putative class action on behalf of DACA
recipients and other work- authorized non-citizens claiming that
the policy is facially discriminatory on the basis of alienage in
violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38UqTAI at no extra charge.[CC]
READY WIRE: Electricians Sue Over Denied Overtime Pay, Payslips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Beaver and Richard Carter, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ready Wire Electrical
Contractors, LLC and Christopher Stant, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-05109 (S.D. Ohio, September 29, 2020), seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties
and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Ready Wire is an electrical contracting company serving Pickaway
and surrounding counties. It specializes in new residential and
commercial electrical services as well as existing service
upgrades, panel change outs and whole house generators. Beaver and
Carter worked as electricians for Ready Wire. Both claim to be
denied overtime compensation at one and one-half times their
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek and Defendant failed to provide them wage statements.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel. (216) 912-2221
Fax: (216) 350-6313
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
REAL HOSPITALITY: Hotel Staff Slams Lack of Closure/Layoff Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kiefer Brazier, Luisairy Gonzalez Pena and Latasha Augustus,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Real Hospitality Group, LLC and Real Payroll Group,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08239 (S.D. N.Y., October 3, 2020),
seeks damages as a result of Defendants' failure to timely provide
the proper required written notice after being subjected to a mass
layoff pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act and the New York State Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.
Real Hospitality Group is a nationwide hotel management company,
which operates and manages dozens of resorts and hotels across
sixteen states including "Cassa Hotel," a boutique hotel located at
45th Street, New York where Plaintiffs are hotel staff.
On or around March 23, 2020, Cassa Hotel completely suspended its
operations due to the outbreak of CoViD-19. Starting on March 18,
2020, Cassa Hotel provided its employees a written notice that they
were being terminated effectively immediately. Said notice
allegedly failed to inform its terminated employees of any "bumping
rights" and failed to include any statement for the basis of
providing notice well after the required notification period.
Despite this, a significant number of affected employees did not
receive any written notice for months after their termination
date.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
275 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1744
New York, NY 10175
Tel: (718) 971-0326
Fax: (718) 795-1642
Email: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
RENTOKIL NORTH: Dotan Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as PATRICK DOTAN, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS-2020466, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
November 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-02216 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, non-compliant wage
statements, final wages not timely paid, and unfair business
practices.
Rentokil North America, Inc. is a company that provides pest
control services based in Reading, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason E. Barsanti, Esq.
Brett Greving, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 234-1700
Facsimile: (619) 234-7831
E-mail: jbarsanti@cozen.com
bgreving@cozen.com
RICO POLLO: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------
CANDIDO RODRIGUEZ, LEWIS REYES, and WENDY JOEL ESTEVEZ, on behalf
of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. RICO
POLLO #2 RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a RICO POLLO, LOS HERMANOS RESTAURANT
CORP. d/b/a RICO POLLO, JUAN F. PUNTIEL, CLEMENTE DE LA CRUZ and
JOHN DOE #1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-05727 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to recover from Defendants:
(1) unpaid wages including over time due to a fixed salary, (2)
unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, (3) unpaid spread of hours
premium, (4) statutory penalties, (5) liquidated damages, and (6)
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action on
behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by the Defendants in New
York State, (including delivery persons, waiters, runners, bussers,
porters, cooks, line-cooks, food preparers, and dishwashers)
employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years
before the filing of the initial complaint.
The Defendants operate two restaurants under the common trade name
"RICO POLLO" in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
RMI INTERNATIONAL: Abedalsalam Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alkhatatbeh Abedalsalam, individually and on behalf of all
aggrieved employees v. RMI International, Inc.; and Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV43544 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 12, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engage in unlawful
policies and practices including failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to pay all wages, failure to provide timely
and compliant meal periods, failure to provide timely and compliant
rest periods, failure to provide accurate and itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse all reasonable and necessary
business related expenses, and failure to timely pay all wages due
to terminated/separated employees.
Mr. Abedalsalam worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt security
guard, from about March 26, 2018 until approximately April 28,
2020, when he was separated from employment.
RMI International, Inc. provides security services. The Company
offers consulting, physical security, and executive protection
services. RMI International serves customers throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
Facsimile: (213) 457-3092
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
ROANOKE AIRPORT: Joint Bid for Conditional Collective Cert. Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT BRANDON PINON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROANOKE
AIRPORT HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC, and KALYAN PLAZA, LLC, Case No.
7:20-cv-00205-EKD (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. certifying a class of:
"persons employed by the Defendants as Salaried Management
Employees who worked at hotels owned, managed, and/or
where benefits were administered by either Kalyan Plaza,
LLC or Roanoke Airport Hotel Partners, LLC from April 9,
2017 through the present who were classified as exempt";
and
2. authorizing and approving judicial notice as agreed to by
the parties to inform potential collective members of the
action and to give them an opportunity to join this action
as party plaintiffs by opting in.
A copy of the joint motion for conditional collective certification
dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/36M0Ngn at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:
Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
Warehouse Row
119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
Roanoke, VA 24011
E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com
thomas@strelkalaw.com
leigh@strelkalaw.com
- and -
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
Counsel for the Defendants are:
Susan Childers North, Esq.
Jesse D. Pound, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
5425 Discovery Park Boulevard, Suite 200
Williamsburg, VA 23188
Telephone: (757) 903-0870
E-mail: snorth@grsm.com
jound@grsm.com
ROLLIN COOK: Joint Motion to Amend Class Definition Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT BARFIELD, ET AL. v.
ROLLIN COOK, Case No. 3:18-cv-01198-MPS (D. Conn.), the Parties ask
the Court for an order to amend the class definition, so that the
class of plaintiffs in this action shall be defined as follows:
"all inmates, both sentenced and unsentenced, who were, are,
or will be confined in a Connecticut Department of Correction
facility, since the filing of this complaint until March 1,
2022."
On April 1, 2020, the parties filed their proposed settlement
agreement, and on November 6, 2020, the parties filed their
Proposed Amended Settlement Agreement, agreeing to extend the
Agreement to March 1, 2022, says the complaint.
Defendant Rollin Cook is a Commissioner in Connecticut Department
of Correction.
A copy of the joint motion to amend class definition dated Nov. 6,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kP677X
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth J. Krayeske Esq.
KENNETH J. KRAYESKE LAW OFFICES
255 Main Street, 5th flr.
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 995-5842
Facsimile: (860) 760-6590
E-mail: attorney@kenkrayeske.com
- and -
DeVaughn Ward, Esq.
WARD LAW LLC
255 Main Street, 5th flr.
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 351-3047
E-mail: dward@attyward.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Terrence M. O'Neill, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Federal Bar #ct10835
110 Sherman St.
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 808-5450
Facsimile: (860) 808-5591
E-mail: terrence.oneill@ct.gov
- and -
Steven R. Strom, Esq.
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 808-5450
Facsimile: (860) 808-5591
E-mail: steven.strom@ct.gs
RUBY NAILS TARRYTOWN: Sanango Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Concepcion Bermejo Sanango, on her own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Ruby Nails Tarrytown,
Inc., Mi Young Kal and Edwin Keh Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08245,
(S.D. N.Y., October 4, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and/or attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
New York labor laws.
Defendants operate as "Ruby Nail," where Sanango was employed as a
nail saloon worker. She claims to be denied lawful overtime
compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over forty in a given workweek and full and
accurate records of hours and wages. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-1324
Fax: (718) 762-1342
Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com
SALLY BEAUTY: Contents of 1 Liter Items Short of a Liter, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aileen Goldstein, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-04583 (E.D. N.Y., September 26, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief resulting from violations of the California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.
Sally Beauty Supply operates four thousand "Sally Beauty Supply"
stores worldwide with at least half in the United States, selling
professional beauty products for hair, skin and nails through
third-party brands and exclusive-label professional product lines.
At least twice a year, Sally has a "Liter Sale," where many of the
previously full price items that are purportedly one liter, are
placed on sale. Goldstein claims that most of the items offered in
the "Liter Sale" are less than a liter. Products sold as a "liter"
are actually thirty-two ounces or 0.9463529 liters. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Robinson-Luqman Sues Over Race Bias at Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEKA ROBINSON-LUQMAN and ALICIA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Case No. CGC-20-588012 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., November 25, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendant for unequal pay and opportunities in the workplace based
on race discrimination in violation of the California Government
Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a pattern
or practice of race clustering Black employees, including the
Plaintiffs, into lower-paying Permanent Civil Service positions,
placing them in more hazardous roles, and subjecting them to common
pay, promotion, training, performance management, job class, and
disciplinary policies and practices that suppress their pay,
promotion, and career-enhancing opportunities, and livelihoods.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful actions, the Plaintiffs and
Class members have suffered and continue to suffer substantial
losses in earnings and other employment benefits.
City and County of San Francisco is a municipal corporation
organized under the laws and Constitution of the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Felicia Medina, Esq.
Jennifer Orthwein, Esq.
Kevin Love Hubbard, Esq.
MEDINA ORTHWEIN LLP
230 Grand Avenue, Suite 201
Oakland, CA 94610
Telephone: (510) 823-2040
Facsimile: (510) 217-3580
E-mail: fmedina@medinaorthwein.com
jorthwein@medinaorthwein.com
- and –
Therese Y. Cannata, Esq.
Karl Olson, Esq.
Michael M. Ching, Esq.
CANNATA O'TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 409-8900
Facsimile: (415) 409-8904
E-mail: kolson@cofolaw.com
mching@cofolaw.com
SAS INSTITUTE: Cahoo Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice to SAS
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN MENDYK, KHADIJA COLE, HYON
PAK, and MICHELLE DAVISON, Plaintiffs, v. SAS INSTITUTE INC., FAST
ENTERPRISES LLC, CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEPHEN GESKEY, SHEMIN
BLUNDELL, DORIS MITCHELL, DEBRA SINGLETON, and SHARON
MOFFET-MASSEY, Defendants, Case No. 17-10657 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, granted SAS Institute's motion to
dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
The five named Plaintiffs have commenced the putative class action
to recover damages allegedly caused by the State of Michigan's
Unemployment Insurance Agency's ("UIA") implementation of an
automated system to detect and punish individuals who submitted
fraudulent unemployment insurance claims. The automated fraud
detection computer application that the UIA implemented sometime
around 2013 was known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated
System ("MiDAS"). MiDAS was developed to search for discrepancies
in the records of unemployment compensation recipients,
automatically determine whether the claimants committed fraud, and
execute collection proceedings, which included intercepting tax
refunds and garnishing wages.
The Plaintiffs say that they are victims of the system's many
failures: it lacked human oversight, it detected fraud by certain
claimants where none existed, it provided little or no notice to
the accused claimants, it failed in many instances to allow
administrative appeals, and it assessed penalties and forfeitures
against individuals who were blameless.
Their amended complaint listed 12 counts against the companies and
individuals whom they believe contributed to the State's
implementation of the flawed fraud-adjudication system. The case
has been whittled down through motion practice and an interlocutory
appeal, and now only one procedural due process claim remains.
The Defendants have filed a second round of motions to dismiss,
raising for the first time that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the dispute because the Plaintiffs cannot
establish Article III standing. The Plaintiffs apparently agree
with the argument as it applies to Defendant SAS Institute, as they
have not responded to the motion and have filed their own motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice against that the Defendant.
The parties ultimately disagree about how the Court should dismiss
SAS. SAS proposed a stipulation to dismiss the case without
prejudice, which included a factual narrative. The Plaintiffs
rejected the stipulation because they did not agree with SAS'
recitation of the facts and insisted (for reasons that remain
unknown) that the case be dismissed with prejudice. SAS insists
that it cannot stipulate to a dismissal with prejudice even if it
wanted to because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
it.
That dustup aside, it is plain that SAS no longer should be part of
the case, Judge Lawson holds. First, the Plaintiffs abandoned
their claim against that the Defendant by failing to respond to
SAS' motion to dismiss, never mentioning SAS in their class action
certification motion, and informing SAS that they have no interest
in pursuing the case against SAS. Their abandonment of their claim
provides an independent basis for dismissal.
Second, the named Plaintiffs' injuries are not fairly traceable to
SAS. SAS did not design, implement, or operate MiDAS. SAS'
Enterprise Fraud Detection Software ("EFDS") merely provided alerts
for the UIA's independent investigation. And neither SAS'
employees nor its EFDS software had any involvement in the named
Plaintiffs' unemployment claim adjudications because the UIA
adjudicated the Plaintiffs' cases before it implemented SAS's EFDS
software on June 11, 2015.
Because the Plaintiffs have not shown that any of their claimed
injuries are fairly traceable to SAS' conduct, they have not
established a critical element of standing. Therefore, the Judge
dismisses the remaining part of the amended complaint against SAS
without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs have not tendered any evidence to establish the
requisite elements of Article III standing as to Defendant SAS.
Therefore, the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' dispute with that Defendant. Accordingly, Judge Lawson
granted the motion by SAS to dismiss for want of subject matter
jurisdiction. The amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice
as to Defendant SAS Institute Inc. only. The Plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss the case against SAS with prejudice is dismissed as moot.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yywr2chl from
Leagle.com.
SAUNDERS CORP: Harrington Alleges Wrongful Termination
------------------------------------------------------
RIFEEK HARRINGTON, an individual v. SAUNDERS CORPORATION, a
corporation; R.S. HUGHES COMPANY, a corporation; JANET SALL, an
individual; Does 1 through 100 Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV43634
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2020) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated arising from the
Defendants' unlawful labor and practices in violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Family Rights Act, the
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the California
Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a machine operator
and shipping coordinator from March 2019 through July 24, 2020,
when his employment was terminated.
Mr. Harrington alleges he was terminated in retaliation for
complaining about unsafe working conditions, violations of law, for
having an actual and/or perceived disability, exercising his right
to take medical/disability leave, for seeking an accommodation
including time off from work due to his actual and/or perceived
disability and to obtain critical COVID-19 virus testing.
Saunders Corp. is an industrial automation company based in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL
572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 796-7470
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER GARCIA, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated non-exempt former and current
employees v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., NATIONAL BEVPAK, NATIONAL
BEVERAGE CORP. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-07798-JWH-AFM (C.D. Cal., Filed July 26, 2019), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all current and former hourly employees and/or non exempt
employees who performed work for any or all of the
defendants at either the La Mirada or Buena Park
facilities during the time period of July 26, 2015, to the
present";
2. certifying the following subclasses:
A. Second Meal Period Subclass of:
"all class members who were not authorized or permitted
a second uninterrupted 30 minute meal period each time
they worked over ten hours in a work shift and were not
paid a premium in lieu thereof";
B. Unpaid Wage Subclass of:
"all class members who had an automatic thirty minute
deduction from their time card and suffered a wage loss
because they worked some or all of the time that was
automatically deducted from their time card";
C. Unpaid Overtime Subclass of:
"all class members who had an automatic thirty minute
deduction from their time card and suffered a wage
loss, that would have been paid at an overtime rate had
the deduction not been made, because they worked some
or all of the time that was automatically deducted from
their time card";
D. Wage Statement Subclass of:
"all class members who received an inaccurate wage
statement during the class period";
E. Failure to Pay Premiums Subclass of:
"all class members who suffered damage as a result of
the defendant’s policy not to pay premiums for missed
meals and missed breaks";
F. Unfair Competition Subclass of:
"all employees from Subclasses A, B, C, D or E who
suffered damage as a result of any of those specific
claims"; and
G. Terminated Employee Wait Time Penalty Subclass of:
"all employees from Subclasses B or C who suffered
damages as a result of any of those specific claims and
as a result of that were not properly paid all wages on
termination or within 72 hours thereof"; and
3. granting reopening discovery so that discovery can be
conducted on class issues.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kNCns4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel P. Stevens, Esq.
Heather McMillan, Esq.
STEVENS & McMILLAN
335 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Telephone: (714) 730-1000
Facsimile: (714) 730-1067
E-mail: ken@scmclaw.com
heather@scmclaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher J. Kondon, Esq.
Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
Jonathan D. Kintzele
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-5000
Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
E-mail: christopher.kondon@klgates.com
saman.rejali@klgates.com
Jonathan.kintzele@klgates.com
SHEEX INC: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Sheex, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08393 (S.D. N.Y., October 7, 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.
Sheex, Inc., operates the "Sheex" online retail store
https://www.sheex.com/ providing consumers with access to an array
of sleepwear, beddings and accessories. Delacruz 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.
Michael A. LaBollita, 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
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SHILDAN TEXERE: Angeles Sues Over Bind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenisa Angeles, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Shildan
Texere LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08133 (S.D. N.Y., October 1,
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.
Shildan Texere is a clothing and apparel company that owns and
operates www.fabrikstyle.com. It offers products and services for
online sale and general delivery to the public. Angeles 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
SIBANYE-STILLWATER: Securities Class Action Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
miningreview.com reports that Sibanye-Stillwater advises that on
November 10, 2020, a Brooklyn, New York, Federal Court dismissed
with prejudice, a putative securities class action suit seeking
damages for allegedly false and/or misleading statements by the
Group and CEO Neal Froneman, related to safety incidents in 2018.
The class action was brought on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Sibanye-Stillwater ADRs between February 23, 2017 and
October 31, 2018, inclusive.
The class action was filed shortly after the occurrence of fatal
incidents at Sibanye-Stillwater's SA gold operations in H1 2018.
The Plaintiffs alleged that, in light of the fatalities, statements
that the Defendants made regarding safety were false and misleading
and violated the U.S. federal securities laws.
In dismissing the class action, the Court found that Plaintiffs
failed to allege any violation of the U.S. securities laws, based
on their failure to allege any materially false or misleading
statements.
The Court also found that Plaintiffs failed to establish that the
Defendants acted with fraudulent intent, or that their alleged
losses were caused by the statements in question.
In doing so, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to file a
further amended complaint, finding that it would be futile, and
directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment and close the
case.
These Court proceedings are thus concluded, subject to any further
proceedings required in the trial court to finalize a judgment and
any appeals that may be lodged.
Group CEO Neal Froneman commenting on the dismissal said:
"We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the class action. We
take the safety of our employees very seriously and ensuring a safe
and enabling work environment is a primary focus throughout the
Group.
"The judgment validates our decision to oppose this class action
and to protect the interests of our stakeholders against spurious
and opportunistic legal actions." [GN]
SIXT RENT-A-CAR: Vitale-Renner Sues Over Insurance Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA VITALE-RENNER v. SIXT RENT-A-CAR, LLC, and NATIONAL
CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 0:20-cv-62289-RAR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 11,
2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated arising from Sixt's unfair and deceptive
self-enrichment scheme through supplemental insurance policy it
obtained from National Casualty Company, in violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Sixt acquired a "Supplemental Liability
Excess Policy" from Defendant NCC, for sale to individual renters
at sums far in excess of the actual premium remitted to NCC. The
premiums paid by renters to Sixt and not remitted to NCC allegedly
constitute a hidden profit center for Sixt, undisclosed to
consumers including the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiff contends that Sixt has breached its contract by
overcharging of premiums; Sixt, as NCC's agent, has fraudulently
misrepresented the price of the SLI Policy, for which both Sixt and
NCC are liable; and Sixt has been unjustly enriched under Florida
law.
Sixt Rent A Car, LLC, is a Delaware corporation and U.S. based
subsidiary of its parent company Sixt S.E. The Company is the
primary entity responsible for Sixt's U.S. vehicle rental
operations, and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
National Casualty Company operates as an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A.
6915 Red Road, Suite 208
Coral Gables, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 443-6200
Facsimile: (305) 443-6204
E-mail: Clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com
SJ EUS FOOD: Faces Davis Suit in California Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SJ EUS Food Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Freeman Ray Davis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SJ EUS Food Inc. doing
business as: Sarku Japan, a Delaware corporation, and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 3:20-cv-02209-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 12,
2020).
The lawsuit arises over Defendants' alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw.
SJ EUS Food Inc. is part of a chain of teriyaki and sushi Japanese
restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CORTESE, JAMES
KEARNEY, DANIEL JULIO, JOHN SICILIANO, JEFFREY BROOKS, and MARK
LEYBLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
SKANSKA KOCH, INC., KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO., and SKANSKA KOCH -
KIEWIT JV, Case No. 1:20-cv-01632-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:
1. granting their motion for conditional certification of the
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, on behalf of:
"all current and former New Jersey union members employed
by the Defendants on the Bayonne Bridge "Raise the Roadway
Plan" construction project (the "Project") who have been
denied payment of one-and-a-half times the New York City
prevailing wage rate and/or the Davis-Bacon prevailing
wage rate for Richmond County, New York for all hours over
40 hours per week for work performed on the New York side
of the Bayonne Bridge span within the last three years
("Covered Employees")";
2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to
Covered Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in
form) as authorized by the FLSA;
3. approving proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
4. allowing Production in Excel format of names, Social
Security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of
employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses,
all known and telephone numbers of all Covered Employees
within 10 days of Court approval of conditional
certification; and
5. posting of the notice, along with the consent forms, in
the Defendants' place of business where Covered Employees
are employed during regular business hours.
On April 17, 2014, the Defendants entered in a contract with the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ("PANY") to serve as the
general contractor for the Project (the "PANY Agreement"). Between
March 2014 and February 2019, the Plaintiffs were W-2 employees of
Defendant SKKJV on the Project.
On February 25, 2020, and as subsequently amended by the Third
Amended Complaint on October 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Class
and Collective Action Complaint against the defendants, seeking
unpaid wages under the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL).
The Complaint seeks to recover damages because Defendants failed to
pay the Covered Employees at one and a half times (i) the
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rate for Richmond County, or (ii) the
New York City prevailing wage that was being paid to New York union
member employees for the same work on the New York side of the
Bayonne Bridge span for all hours over 40 per week for work
performed on the New York City side of the Bayonne Bridge span as
required by Defendants' agreement with the PANY for the Project.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3fbs3sk at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bob Kasolas, Esq.
Michael H. Ansell, Esq.
101 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-5700
E-mail: bkasolas@bracheichler.com
mansell@bracheichler.com
The Defendants are represented by:
PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.
1325 Avenue of the Americas 10th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 382-0909
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Grissom Sues Over Erroneous Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Grissom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-07948, (S.D. N.Y., September 25, 2020), seeks
statutory and punitive damages, actual damages suffered due to
Sterling's negligent and inaccurate reporting, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Grissom applied to be a nanny through Care.com. In connection with
the hiring process, Sterling Infosystems produced a background
check on her that reported a felony burglary and grand theft
charges. Grissom claims that those charges are erroneous and not
hers. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
John Albanese, Esq.
BERGER AND MONTAGUE
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Tel: (612) 594-5933
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: jalbanese@bm.net
emdrake@bm.net
STOCKTON NURSING: Hudson Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------
Linda Hudson, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stockton Nursing And Rehab
Center, LLC, Eduro Healthcare, LLC, Dycora Transitional Health -
Stockton, LLC, Grant Garrison and Does 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0008507 (Cal. Super., October
7, 2020), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest period
premiums and derivative penalties for inaccurate wage statements
and reimbursement of cellphone charges under the California Labor
Code, Business and Professions Code and Wage Orders, and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Hudson began working at the Stockton Nursing and Rehab Facility
(formerly Golden Living Hy-Pana), as a Unit Manager in or around
2013 in a facility owned and operated by Golden Living. Said
facility was taken over by Dycora until June 2019, when Eduro
Healthcare, LLC, took over operations, doing business as Stockton
Nursing and Rehab Center.
Hudson claims to have routinely worked well in excess of forty
hours in a workweek and was not able to take an uninterrupted
thirty minute lunch break. She also claims to have incurred
cellphone charges in line with her duties but was not reimbursed
for such.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
Renald Konini, Esq.
Jessica L. Hart, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: (916) 525-0716
Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
THIRD AVENUE: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMILCAR ROMEO PEREZ, FIDEL AVILA PEREZ, and LUIS EDUARDO GUARCAX
CHILEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THIRD AVENUE FOOD CORP. (D/B/A TIVOLI CAFE), GUS
KASSIMIS, and JAIME DOE A/K/A JIMMY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-09832 (S.D.N.Y., November 23, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay spread of hours
premium, failure to provide a written wage notice, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
business expenses, unlawful tip and wage deductions, and failure to
pay wages in timely manner.
Plaintiff Amilcar Romeo Perez was employed by the Defendants as a
cook at Tivoli Cafe from approximately January 2017 until on or
about September 13, 2020.
Plaintiff Fidel Avila Perez was employed by the Defendants as a
delivery worker at Tivoli Cafe from approximately August 2017 until
on or about September 4, 2020.
Plaintiff Luis Eduardo Guarcax Chilel was employed by the
Defendants as a cook at Tivoli Cafe from approximately October 2018
until on or about September 13, 2020.
Third Avenue Food Corp., d/b/a Tivoli Cafe, is a restaurant owner
and operator located at 283 3rd Ave., New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
TOTAL RENAL: Hesketh Labor Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JOSEPH J. HESKETH III, on his behalf and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons v. TOTAL RENAL CARE,
INC., on its own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated
persons, Case No. 20-2-15575-6-SEA, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of Washington for King County to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on November
23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-01733-JLR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by
failing to pay class members premium pay for the regularly schedule
hours worked after a national emergency was declared on January 31,
2020.
Total Renal Care, Inc. is a health care services provider
headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Chelsea Dwyer Petersen, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com
TOWER HILL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Recovery Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. TOWER
HILL PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE
COMPANY, TOWER HILL SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, TOWER HILL SIGNATURE
INSURANCE COMPANY, OMEGA INSURANCE COMPANY, ROCKHILL INSURANCE
COMPANY, and INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-00262 (N.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 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.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or
reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in
accidents that are covered by property and casualty insurance
policies issued by the Defendants. 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
Medicare Advantage Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust
Funds and the public.
The Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed
at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the
suit says.
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC 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:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
Janpaul Portal, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
Brickell World Plaza
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
Facsimile: (305) 379-6222
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jpp@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
- and -
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
TRALEE AFFORDABLE: Two Settlement Classes Certified in Davis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE DAVIS v. TRALEE
AFFORDABLE PANTHER LLC d/b/a DEERFIELD CROSSING
APARTMENTS and RAM PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00349-LCB-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of a class action
settlement;
2. certifying settlement classes:
-- Collection Letter Class:
"all natural persons who (a) at any point between
February 19, 2015 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any
of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or
managed by Defendants and (c) received a letter that
threatened that Defendants would file a summary
ejectment lawsuit, an eviction action, or notice to
vacate the premises if the person failed to make a
complete rental payment and that once the summary
ejectment lawsuit was filed, the tenant would be
charged Eviction Fees in order to dismiss the eviction
action." There are approximately 931 potential
Collection Letter Class members.; and
-- Eviction Fee Class:
"all natural persons who (a) at any point between
February 19, 2015 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any
of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or
managed by Defendants and (c) were charged and (d)
actually paid Eviction Fees." There are approximately
150 Eviction Fee Class members.
Excluded from the Settlement Classes are (1) persons
who are employees, directors, officers, and agents of
Defendants; (2) persons who timely and properly exclude
themselves from the Settlement Classes as provided in
this Agreement; (3) anyone who has previously executed
a written release of all claims against Defendants
related to the collecting or threatening to collect
Eviction Fees and would otherwise be a member o
3. appointing Edward H. Maginnis and Karl S. Gwaltney of
Maginnis Law, PLLC, and Scott C. Harris and Patrick M.
Wallace of Whitfield Bryson LLP as settlement classes
counsel;
4. appointing the Plaintiff Jasmine Davis as settlement
classes representative;
5. approving classes notice; and
6. scheduling a fairness hearing on March 22, 2021.
A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Nov. 5,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pCb47B
at no extra charge.[CC]
TTAC PUBLISHING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Shultz TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant TTAC Publishing, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE SHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. TTAC
PUBLISHING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04375-HSG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.
The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff after she received a series
of unsolicited telemarketing text messages on her personal cellular
telephone by or on behalf of Defendant beginning in November 2019.
She further alleges that these text messages were sent using an
automatic telephone dialing system. The Plaintiff denies ever
providing her prior express consent to receive such texts. On the
basis of these facts, the Plaintiff brings a single cause of action
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On October 26, 2020, the court denies the motion to compel
arbitration filed by the Defendant. The Defendant's motion to
strike is premised on the same argument that, like Plaintiff, class
members who received text messages from the Defendant also agreed
to the Terms and Conditions when completing purchases on the
Defendant's Website.
The appellate case is captioned as Michelle Shultz v. TTAC
Publishing, LLC, Case No. 20-17300, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 24, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MICHELLE SHULTZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Richard Drury, Esq.
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
410 12th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 836-4200
E-mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com
- and -
Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq.
Taylor True Smith, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0676
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
Defendant-Appellant TTAC PUBLISHING, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, is represented by:
Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
Telephone: (310) 228-2259
E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
U.S. CITIZENSHIP: ITServe et al. Drop Third Cause of Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ITSERVE ALLIANCE, INC., et
al., v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI II, Senior Official Performing the
Duties of the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00201-APM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs on November 25,
2020, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the Third Cause of
Action in their Second Amended Complaint.
The Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an Order dated November 17,
2020, denying in part and holding in abeyance in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Faced with this predicament, the
court deferred ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its
entirety pending further instruction from the Plaintiffs as to the
alternative relief sought by the Defendant -- transferring the
action to the Court of Federal Claims.
The parties were slated to appear for a telephonic status hearing
on November 30, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.
The Plaintiffs in this putative class action are ITServe Alliance,
Inc., a trade organization, and various of its member companies.
They brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
asserting that since January 2014, the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) has illegally charged sponsoring
employers an excessive fee for filing change-of-status applications
for H1-B visa beneficiaries who are already in the United States.
They contend that USCIS has collected nearly $350 million in
excessive fees.
A copy of the Court's Order memorandum, opinion and order dated
Nov. 17, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3m8PIMM at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Catholic Charities' Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GATORE et al v. UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 1:15-cv-00459
(D.C., Filed March 31, 2015), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton
entered an order:
1. dismissing case with prejudice as to all claims and causes
of action brought by the plaintiff Catholic Charities of
the Archdiocese of Washington;
2. denying as moot Catholic Charities' Motion for Class
Certification; and
3. denying as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Catholic
Charities' Policy-or-Practice Claim.
The suit alleges violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.[CC]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Health Providers Files ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, P.A., as an authorized
representative of its patients, and American Surgical Arts, P.C.,
as an authorized representative of its patient J.C., on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Unitedhealth Group Inc., United Healthcare Services,
Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare
Service LLC, Oxford Health Plans, LLC, and Oxford Health Insurance,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-13834 (D. N.J., October 2, 2020),
seeks an order requiring United to repay all class members, with
interest, for the amount of out-of-network benefits denied. The
lawsuit also seeks an order for United to reprocess all wrongfully
denied appeals in compliance with plan terms and without the
improper reductions, plus equitable payments, disbursements and
expenses of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
such other and further relief under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Atlantic Neuro and American Surgical are medical providers who
claim to have been shortchanged on treatment payments for their
patients covered by United. The latter is in the business of
insuring and administering health plans including those of Atlantic
Neuro and American Surgical. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
John J. Zefutie, Jr.
COLELLA ZEFUTIE LLC
116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
Princeton Forrestal Village
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel: (609) 551-9771
Fax: (202) 920-0894
Email: jzefutie@czlaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT: Toro Suit Removed to Conn. Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ABIGAIL TORO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Case No.
FBT-CV20-6101151-S, was removed from the Superior Court of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on November 12,
2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-01701-SRU to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's failure to reimburse the
Plaintiff's and the Class' payment of tuition and fees for
in-person and on-campus live education during the semesters
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The University of Bridgeport is a private university in Bridgeport,
Connecticut. The university is accredited by the New England
Commission of Higher Education.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Megan E. Bryson, Esq.
KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYAN LLP
1010 Washington Blvd., 7th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 557-5700
Facsimile: (203) 557-5777
E-mail: mbryson@kbrlaw.com
UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS: Butterfield Seeks Healthcare Staff's OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE BUTTERFIELD, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, INC., d/b/a
MARSHALL HEALTH, Case No. 3:20-cv-00759 (S.D.W. Va., November 11,
2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and others similarly situated, who work or worked for
the Defendant as health care workers during the past four years,
were denied a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for the overtime hours they worked.
University Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., doing business as
Marshall Health, is a medical group practice located in Huntington,
West Virginia that specializes in general surgery and critical care
surgery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hoyt Glazer, Esq.
Abraham J. Saad, Esq.
GLAZER SAAD ANDERSON L.C.
320 Ninth Street, Suite B
Huntington, WV 25701
Telephone: (304) 522-4149
Facsimile: (800) 879-7248
E-mail: hoyt@gsalaw-wv.com
abe@gsalaw-wv.com
VEST MONROE: Unlawfully Discloses Mental Health Records, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VEST MONROE, LLC, US HEALTHVEST, LLC, RV BEHAVIORAL,
LLC, AMY ALEXANDER, AND JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2020CV342479 (Ga.
Super., Fulton Cty., Nov. 12, 2020) arises from Defendants'
disregard of the Plaintiff's privacy interests by disclosing his
highly confidential, legally protected mental and behavioral health
records.
The Plaintiff brought this action for the Defendants' disregard of
his privacy interests. As a former patient of Ridgeview Institute
Monroe, a private hospital that treats individuals with addiction
and mental health problems, he had a legitimate expectation of
privacy in his medical records and the personal identifying
information and protected health information they contain. He
contends that as a result of the Defendants' negligence, breaches
of agreement and other tortious misconduct, his health records and
1,852 similarly situated individuals were released to unauthorized
individuals, in whose possession such records remain.
The unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiffs' mental and
behavioral health records has harmed the Plaintiff and the Class
members in numerous ways, including but not limited to loss and
invasion of privacy, loss of property, pecuniary loss, and loss of
control of their highly sensitive mental and behavioral health
records, the suit says.
HealthVest, Vest Monroe, and RV Behavioral Health own and/or
operate Ridgeview Institute Monroe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy R. Kelly, IV, Esq.
Caitlin J. Derst, Esq.
KELLY & KELLY, LLP
301 East 37th Street
Savannah, GA 31401
E-mail: rkelly@kklegal.com
cderst@kklegal.com
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Silva Sues Over Manual Workers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, YVONNE SILVA, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09745 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
September 2017 through February 2020 as a manual worker spending at
least 25% of her time engaging in physical labor.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated manual workers were required by the Defendant to work in
excess of 40 hours a week, but the Defendant deprived them of their
lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half times of their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Additionally, the Defendant failed to pay all their commissions
earned, failed to timely pay them all wages owed to them, and
failed to provide them with accurate wage statements and with a
hiring notice at or before their times of hire.
Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC owns and operates retail stores
throughout New York State. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Bouklas, Esq.
BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
357 Veterans Memorial Highway
Commack, NY 11725
Tel: (516) 742-4949
E-mail: james@bglawny.com
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT: Winks Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET AMANDA WINKS,
individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00420-HEH
(E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action;
2. tolling the statute of limitations applicable to the
claims of putative opt-ins from the date of June 11, 2020;
3. approving Notice to the putative Plaintiffs; and
4. directing the Defendant to provide the names and addresses
of potential class members, in electronic form.
Virginia Department of Transportation is the agency of the state
government responsible for transportation in the state of Virginia
in the United States. VDOT is headquartered at the Virginia
Department of Highways Building in downtown Richmond.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
certification dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/2Uz2SGZ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sydney E. Rab, Esq.
THE RAB LAW FIRM
5407 Langdon Drive
Richmond, Va. 23225
Telephone: (804) 822-8981
E-mail: Msydrab@comcast.net
- and -
Tim Schulte, Esq.
Blackwell N. Shelley, Jr., Esq.
Shelley Cupp Schulte, P.C.
3 W. Cary Street
Richmond VA 23220
Telephone: (804) 644-9700
Facsimile; (804) 278-9634
E-mail: schulte@scs-work.com
shelley@scs-work.com
- and -
Timothy E. Cupp, Esq.
SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C.
1951 Evelyn Byrd Avenue, Suite D
Harrisonburg, VA 22803
Telephone: (540) 432-9988
Facsimile: (804) 278-9634
E-mail: Cupp@scs-work.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jimmy F. Robinson, Esq.
J. Clay Rollins, Esq.
Scott A. Siegner, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300
Riverfront Plaza, West Tower
Richmond, VA 23219
E-mail: jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com
clay.rollins@ogletreedeakins.com
scott.siegner@ogletreedeakins.com
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Conditional Cert. of Managers' Class Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEVINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS INC., doing business as
Natural Grocers, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-ST (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order:
1. granting Levine's Motion for Conditional Certification;
2. conditionally certifying following class for purposes of
Levine's Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
claims:
"all current and former "Assistant Store Managers" who
worked for Natural Grocers in the United States at any
time on or after January 31, 2017 to the present, and who
were classified as exempt from overtime compensation"; and
3. directing the parties to meet and confer and draft a
stipulated Notice and process for the collective action no
later than November 23, 2020.
The Court declines Natural Grocers' invitation to weigh the
competing deposition testimony at the conditional certification
stage. Accordingly, the Court finds that Levine has made
substantial allegations that the putative class is similarly
situated. The Court thus grants the Motion for Conditional
Certification.
Vitamin Cottage is a Colorado based health food chain.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36MefRp at no extra charge.[CC]
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Chavez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees
v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; VIVINT SOLAR
DEVELOPER, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV43755 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have: (1) failed to
provide him and all other aggrieved employees with meal periods;
(2) failed to provide them with rest periods; (3) failed to pay
them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; (4) failed
to properly record their meal and rest breaks; (5) failed to pay
them minimum wages for all hours worked; (6) failed to pay them
overtime wages; (7) failed to provide them with accurate written
wage statements; (8) failed to pay them all of their final wages
following separation of employment; and (9) and failed to reimburse
them for all necessary business expenditures incurred.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the State of
California as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately
October 2019 through March 2020.
Vivint Solar, Inc. is an American solar energy company
headquartered in Lehi, Utah. It is a residential solar provider
that designs, installs, and maintains photovoltaic systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
david@setarehlaw.com
WASHINGTON: Class Certification Bid in "Taylor" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE TAYLOR, et al.
v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE YOUTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES - FAR AND CPS DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-01869-RAJ-JRC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge J. Richard
Creatura entered an order denying Plaintiff's motions for:
-- the appointment of counsel;
-- class certification; and
-- Rule 16 Case Management.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff requests the appointment of pro bono
counsel to represent her. There is no constitutional right to
appointed counsel in a civil action, and whether to appoint counsel
is within this Court's discretion. The Court has recommended
dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. The Court
finds that plaintiff's request to certify a class is, at present,
premature, in light of the pending reports and recommendations, and
her motion for class certification is denied. The Plaintiff
requests that the Court enter a case management order in light of
the complexity of the action and number of named defendants. The
Court has issued its scheduling order. And, a pretrial conference
in this matter is premature, in light of the pending reports and
recommendations. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for a case
management order is denied."
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Uzz8cL at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLPATH LLC: Shortchanges Workers Overtime Pay, Myles Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shalonda Myles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WellPath LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01498 (E.D. Wis., September 28, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, compensation for missed breaks, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or
any such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
WellPath LLC contracts with governmental and private entities
across the United States to provide healthcare services to inmates.
Myles worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt registered nurse working
at the Milwaukee County Jail. She claims that Wellpath failed to
include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as
monetary bonuses, shift differentials, incentives, awards and/or
other rewards and payments, in employees' regular rates of pay for
overtime calculation purposes. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: Phone Bankers Sue Over Unpaid Hours
-----------------------------------------------------
Denise Droesch and Shakara Thompson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06751
(N.D. Cal., September 28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages for all hours worked exceeding forty in a
workweek, statutory penalties, including liquidated damages, costs
and fees and penalties for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and North Carolina and California labor laws.
Wells Fargo employed Droesch and Thompson as Premier Phone Banker
at Wells Fargo's California Business Banking Call Center and
Financial Crimes Specialist III at Wells Fargo's Charlotte, North
Carolina Fraud Department Call Center. They claim to be
uncompensated for the time spent in booting up their computers and
open various software programs necessary for handling a call. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
8330 Allison Ave., Suite C
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 488-6400
Email: christina@chumphreylaw.com
- and -
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
Post Office Box 78161
Charlotte, NC 28271
Tel: (844) 437-7634
Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement in ATM Access Fee Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company has
reached a settlement in principle pursuant to which the Company
will pay $20.8 million to resolve the ATM Access Fee-related suit,
subject to final documentation of the settlement agreement.
In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin,
et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if
an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard
transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee
charged for transactions on other networks, violates antitrust
rules.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law.
Two other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed
in the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a
defendant.
On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the three actions. Plaintiffs appealed the
dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district
court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the district
court for further proceedings.
On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.
On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the
petitions as improvidently granted, and the three cases returned to
the district court for further proceedings.
The Company has entered into an agreement pursuant to which the
Company will pay $20.8 million to resolve the cases, subject to
court approval.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that an appeal has been
taken from the court order granting final approval of a settlement
in the class action related to guaranteed automobile protection
(GAP).
A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud
class action against the Company and its executive officers
alleging material misstatements and omissions of collateral
protection insurance (CPI)-related information in the Company's
public disclosures.
In January 2020, the court dismissed this action as to all
defendants except the Company and a former executive officer and
limited the action to two alleged misstatements.
In addition, the Company is subject to a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that customers are entitled to refunds related
to the unused portion of GAP waiver or insurance agreements between
the customer and dealer and, by assignment, the lender.
Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the
subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and
state court in California.
The court dismissed the state court action in September 2018, but
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2018. The
parties to the state court action have entered into an agreement to
resolve the action pursuant to which the Company will pay
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and undertake certain business and
governance practices.
The state court granted final approval of the settlement on January
15, 2020, and a notice of appeal has been filed.
These and other issues related to the origination, servicing, and
collection of consumer automobile loans, including related
insurance products, have also subjected the Company to formal or
informal inquiries, investigations, or examinations from federal
and state government agencies.
In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50
state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an
investigation into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and
GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the
Company paid $575 million.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 29 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of Wells Fargo & Company shareholders.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
WFC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form-2?prid=10898&wire=1
Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC)
WFC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 13, 2017
- October 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 29, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form-2?prid=10898&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wells
Fargo & Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: 1) although defendants reassured
investors that Wells Fargo's commercial credit portfolios were of
exceptional credit quality and the product of robust,
industry-leading underwriting and due diligence policies and
procedures, Wells Fargo actually fueled its rapid commercial loan
growth by lending to businesses that posed a heightened risk of
default; 2) Wells Fargo systematically concealed these credit risks
by artificially inflating the incomes generated by borrowing
businesses, relaxing or failing to follow applicable underwriting
procedures, and circumventing applicable risk controls; and 3)
Wells Fargo exacerbated the threat posed by its defective
commercial debt by packaging the loans into CLOs and CMBS and
widely distributing these securitized products throughout the
financial system.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Shareholder Securities Fraud Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a securities fraud class action suit brought by
its shareholders.
Wells Fargo shareholders have brought a securities fraud class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers made false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's efforts to comply with the
February 2018 consent order with the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System and the April 2018 consent orders with the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Wilson Sues Over Improper Charging of Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MOSANTHONY WILSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & CO., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02307-DMS-WVG
(S.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2020) seeks statutory damages under the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, restitution, and injunctive relief
due to, inter alia, Defendant's policy and practice of obtaining
"affirmative consent" using a noncompliant opt-in disclosure
agreement, unlawfully assessing and unilaterally collecting
overdraft fees.
Wells Fargo has allegedly violated and continues to violate Federal
Reserve Regulation E, which requires that before financial
institutions are permitted to charge overdraft fees on one-time
debit card and ATM transactions, they must provide a complete,
accurate, clear, and easily understandable disclosure document of
their overdraft services; they must provide that disclosure as a
stand-alone document not intertwined with other disclosures; and
they must obtain verifiable agreement of a customer's agreement to
opt-in to the financial institution's overdraft program.
Specifically, in order to purportedly comply with the Regulation E
requirements, the Defendant provides its customers including the
Plaintiff with the Regulation E opt-in disclosure agreement that
describes the bank's overdraft service as "What You Need to Know
About Overdrafts and Overdraft Fees". Wells Fargo's Regulation E
opt-in disclosure agreement, however, provides customers with
ambiguous and misleading language to describe the circumstances
when Wells Fargo will charge the customer an overdraft fee. Not
only does it not disclose the use of the available balance to
assess overdraft fees, it describes an overdraft using language
that conveys Wells Fargo's use of the actual balance instead of the
artificial available balance to assess overdraft fees, the suit
says.
Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with
managerial offices throughout the United States and overseas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
- and -
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com
WEST SHORE: Faces Beiswinger Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
ERICA BEISWINGER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WEST SHORE HOME LLC, a Pennsylvania company,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01286-HES-PDB (M.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2020) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff brought this action to stop the Defendant from
violating the TCPA by making pre-recorded telemarketing calls
without consent to consumers, including those whose phone numbers
were registered on the National Do Not Call registry, to promote
the renovations sweepstakes in which consumers can get $5,000
towards a home renovation.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons
injured by the Defendant's conduct.
West Shore Home LLC operates corporate-owned offices through the
U.S. that provide construction and remodeling services including
windows, doors, showers, baths and walk-in tubs to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
WESTPAC BANKING: Class Action Proceeding in Australia Discontinued
------------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the Johnson
Winter & Slattery proceeding was discontinued in May 2020 by
agreement between Westpac, the applicant in that proceeding and the
applicant in the Phi Finney McDonald proceeding.
Westpac is defending a class action proceeding which was commenced
in December 2019 in the Federal Court of Australia by law firm Phi
Finney McDonald, on behalf of certain investors in Westpac
securities between 16 December 2013 and 19 November 2019.
The proceeding involves allegations relating to market disclosure
issues connected to Westpac's monitoring of financial crime over
the relevant period and matters which are the subject of the
AUSTRAC proceedings.
The claims do not identify the amount of any damages sought.
However, given the time period in question and the nature of the
claims it is likely that the damages which will be alleged will be
significant.
No provision has been taken in relation to the potential exposure.
A second class action in relation to similar issues was commenced
by law firm Johnson Winter & Slattery in March 2020.
The Phi Finney McDonald claim was subsequently amended to include
the group members from the Johnson Winter & Slattery proceeding.
The Johnson Winter & Slattery proceeding was discontinued in May
2020 by agreement between Westpac, the applicant in that proceeding
and the applicant in the Phi Finney McDonald proceeding.
Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.
WESTPAC BANKING: Initial Trial in Australia Suit Set for May 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that initial trial in
the class action suit against the company and Westpac Life
Insurance Services Limited (WLIS), is set for May 2021.
On 12 October 2017, a class action was filed in the Federal Court
of Australia on behalf of customers who, since February 2011,
obtained insurance issued by Westpac Life Insurance Services
Limited (WLIS) on the recommendation of financial advisers employed
within the Westpac Group.
The plaintiffs have alleged that aspects of the financial advice
provided by those advisers breached fiduciary and statutory duties
owed to the advisers' clients, including the duty to act in the
best interests of the client, and that WLIS was knowingly involved
in those alleged breaches.
Westpac and WLIS are defending the proceedings.
The matter has been set down for an initial trial in May 2021.
Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.
WESTPAC BANKING: Settlement Reached in Rosen Law Firm Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that a settlement has
been reached in the class action suit initiated by the Rosen Law
Firm.
In January 2020, a US class action was commenced by the Rosen Law
Firm, naming Westpac, its current CEO and its former CEO as
defendants.
It was brought on behalf of certain investors in Westpac securities
between 11 November 2015 and 19 November 2019.
That claim related to market disclosure issues connected to
Westpac's monitoring of financial crime over the relevant period
and matters which are the subject of the AUSTRAC proceedings.
The parties have agreed to settle this proceeding on a wholly
without admissions basis and on the basis that in return for full
releases from the class members in the proceeding, Westpac will pay
an amount of US$3.1million.
The settlement remains subject to approval by the District Court of
Oregon and a process to give class members an option to opt out.
Westpac said, "In light of the above developments, Westpac has
taken a provision in respect of the settlement."
Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.
WHELAN SECURITY: Goto Remanded to San Francisco Cty. Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California remanded the case, MICHAEL ANTHONY
GOTO, Plaintiff, v. WHELAN SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-01114-HSG (N.D. Cal.), to the San Francisco County
Superior Court.
On Jan. 10, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the proposed class action in
San Francisco County Superior Court against Defendant Whelan and
Does 1 through 10. He subsequently filed his first amended class
action complaint on Feb. 7, 2020. The operative complaint alleges
that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in California from
approximately April 2012 to October 2019, specifically as a
non-exempt supervisor from about 2015 until October 2019.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other similarly
situated current and former non-exempt and exempt supervisory and
office employees of the Defendant who worked in California and all
individuals who were subjected to a background check by the
Defendant. He further seeks to represent the following classes
and/or subclasses: (1) overtime wage class; (2) minimum and regular
wage class; (3) vacation pay class; (4) rest period class; (5) wage
statement class; (6) waiting time class; (7) unreimbursed expenses
class; and (8) background check class. Id.
In total, the Plaintiff alleges 20 causes of action on behalf of
himself and the putative class against the Defendant for violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and various California
state law claims, including violations of labor laws, the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and
Private Attorneys General Act.
The Defendant timely filed a notice of removal on Feb. 12, 2020,
asserting federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. It
identified two bases for federal question jurisdiction. First, the
Plaintiff's FCRA cause of action arises under federal law. Second,
a substantial portion of the alleged events giving rise to the
Plaintiff's claims occurred on a federal enclave. Finally, the
Defendant asserted that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining alleged events, even those that did not occur in
the Presidio.
The Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this
action because he alleges only a "bare procedural violation" of the
FCRA, such that he lacks standing, and he has not alleged that any
claims occurred or arose on a federal enclave. Additionally, he
argues that the Court should decline to extend supplemental
jurisdiction where it lacks original jurisdiction.
Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiff parrots the language of the
statute and contends that the Defendant obtained consumer reports
and investigative consumer reports multiple times after the
application process and during the employment of the Plaintiff and
the other Class members. The Plaintiff does not allege belated
discovery of these reports or plead anything about his state of
mind at all, and the Judge thus cannot infer that the Plaintiff is
claiming that he was confused by the inclusion of the "extraneous
language." Because the Plaintiff has pled no more than a bare
procedural violation of the FCRA (which appears to have been an
intentional choice), he does not have Article III standing and the
Court lacks jurisdiction over the FCRA claim.
Based on the materials submitted to the Court, the Plaintiff has
indicated that he does not intend to base his state claims on time
worked at the Presidio client site, nor do the allegations clearly
implicate such conduct. As a result, the Judge does not have
jurisdiction over the California state law claims based on the
federal enclave doctrine.
Finally, Section 1367(a) provides that in any civil action of which
the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts
will have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are
so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution. The Judge
finds that the Court lacks original jurisdiction under the two
bases identified by the Defendant. Thus, the Court does not have
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's
motion to remand. The case is remanded to the San Francisco County
Superior Court. The clerk is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5qdc42z from Leagle.com.
WORKFORCE RESOURCES: Abdul Jamil Class Action Settlement Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMAD JAWAD ABDUL JAMIL,
AHMAD JAMSHID ABDUL JAMIL, AHMAD FARHAD ABDUL JAMIL,
individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, v.
WORKFORCE RESOURCES, LLC; BRISTOL BAY NATIVE CORPORATION; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00027-JLS-NLS (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement; and
2. granting the Plaintiffs' Fee Motion bacause the requested
attorneys' fees, costs, service awards, Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA) award, and settlement administration
expenses are reasonable;
3. approving Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
22 $300,000 and reimbursement of litigation expenses in
the amount of $8,639.45;
4. approving class representative service payments to named
Plaintiffs Ahmad Jawad Abdul Jamil, Ahmad Jamshid Abdul
Jamil, and Ahmad Farhad Abdul Jamil in the amount of
$10,000 each, for a total of $30,000;
5. approving settlement administration fees and expenses to
Simpluris, the Settlement Administrator, in the amount of
$12,500;
6. approving the PAGA Award in the amount of $10,000; and
7. retaining 7 exclusive jurisdiction over this action and
the Parties, including the class, for purposes of
enforcing the terms and conditions of the Settlement.
The Defendants removed the action to federal court on January 24,
2018. Th Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on
July 20, 2018, adding a claim for civil penalties under the Labor
Code PAGA. Because the Defendants' prior motion to dismiss was
dismissed as moot, the Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims, which the Court denied.
The Parties attended two Early Neutral Evaluation Conferences with
the Honorable Nita L. Stormes, on April 23 and July 29, 2019, but
were unable to reach a settlement. On September 24, 2019, the
Parties attended a mediation conducted by Jill Sperber, Esq.,
during which they reached the Proposed Settlement Agreement.
On February 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On April 9, 2020,
the plaintiffs of a separate, related putative class action, Abikar
v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation, No. 18CV1700 JLS (AGS) (S.D.
Cal. filed July 25, 2018), filed a motion to intervene and
objection to the proposed settlement, they subsequently withdrew,
leaving the Preliminary Approval Motion unopposed. On June 9, 2020,
the Court granted Plaintiffs Preliminary Approval Declaration of
Kevin Mahoney in Support of Prelim. On July 14, 2020, the
Court-approved notice of the Settlement was sent via U.S. first
class mail to the 1,087 members of the class, fifty-four of which
ultimately were undeliverable. The Parties are now before the Court
to seek the Court's final approval of their Settlement and
attorneys' fees, costs, service awards, PAGA award, and settlement
administration expenses.
The Plaintiffs Ahmad Jawad Abdul Jamil, Ahmad Jamshid Abdul Jamil,
and Ahmad Farhad Abdul Jamil filed a putative class action
complaint against Workforce Resources in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego on September 27, 2017. The
allegations included failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime wages; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure
to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and failure timely
to pay wages due at separation in violation of various provisions
of the California Labor Code, says the complaint.
Wokforce Resources is a national corporation providing project
management and staff augmentation to federal, state and local
governments as well as the private sector. Bristol Bay Native
Corporation is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations
created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 in
settlement of aboriginal land claims.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35E3YHC at no extra charge.[CC]
WRIGHT OF INDIANA: Underpays Flaggers, Grammer Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
LONNIE J. GRAMMER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WRIGHT OF INDIANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03041-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., November 19, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was hired by the Defendant as one of its
flaggers who protect utility workers, alleges that the Defendant
violated its rights to earned overtime through its unlawful
overtime calculation and payment policies. The Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Flaggers' wages and overtime wages have been
systematically being underpaid by the Defendant by failing to pay
them on a continuous workday basis. Specifically, the Defendant
refused to pay their time spent traveling for the Defendant's
business as well as the time spent performing post-shift duties at
an assigned meeting location designated by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and on behalf of members
of the Class of current and former Flaggers of the Defendant, all
available damages, including all unpaid wages, all underpaid wages,
all unlawfully deducted wages, all available liquidated damages,
and all attorney's fees, costs and expenses.
Wright of Indiana, LLC provides traffic control service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terry Haute, IN 47807
Tel: (812) 232-9691
Fax: (812) 234-2881
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
- and –
Aaron J. Williamson, Esq.
WILLIAMSON CIVIL LAW, LLC
8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1300
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Tel: (317) 434-0370
Fax: (765) 204-7161
E-mail: aaron.williamson@wcivillaw.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 ***