/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201202.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 241
Headlines
1ST LIGHT ENERGY: Landin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Ponder Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Roberson Says
3M COMPANY: Bocock Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Cosgrove Says Firefighters Exposed to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Faces Foley Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Hines Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Raker Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Yescas Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Forland Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Paul Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Rivera Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Trupiano Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
4E BRANDS: Sanders Suit Transferred to New York
ALASKA AIRLINES: Motion to Decertify Clarkson Class Granted
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Davis Files Suit under FDCPA
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sompolinsky Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
ALO LLC: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
AMFI CORP: Fails to Maintain Stock Ledger, Mitchell Partners Says
ANDY & EVAN INDUSTRIES: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
APOYO FINANCIERO: Maxwell Files Suit in California
APPLE INC: Alvarado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL: Court Dismisses 8 Causes of Action in Amerio Suit
BAKERSFIELD DODGE: Stephenson Files Suit in California
BANG & OLUFSEN: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
BANNER HEALTH: Settlement in Ramos Suit Wins Final Approval
BEDSHE INTERNATIONAL: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Griffin Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
BG PRODUCTS: Goodwin Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
BLUE NILE: Wiretaps Website Users' Personal Data, Johnson Claims
BLUE RAVEN SOLAR: Johansen Suit Transferred to Nevada
BRILLIANT HOME: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BROW ARROW: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CACH LLC: Crandle Suit Removed to S.D. California
CAMPOS CLEANING: Peralta Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Longo Seeks Refunds of Vacated Dorms Amid COVID
CAPITAL ONE: Sabzehroo Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Faces Barrett Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
CHASER LLC: Calcano Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
CITIGROUP INC: City of Sterling Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
CITY COMPASSIONATE: Conde Suit Has Conditional Class Status
CONAGRA BRANDS: Michael Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir.
CONTACTABILITY.COM: FLSA Collective Status Sought for Brown Case
COUNTRY FAIR: Petition for Allowance of Appeal Filed in Sciola Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: Molina Class Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice
CSAA INSURANCE: Mulkey Files Suit in California
CTC FOOD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CULTURAL CARE: Class Status Bid in Maldanado Suit Due Feb. 1
DELTA AIRLINES: Eierstock Seeks Class Status for COBRA Suit
DIAMOND PRODUCTS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIESTEL TURKEY: Wetzel Files Suit in New Mexico
DOMINION ENERGY: Sziber Seeks to Certify Inspectors Class
E GROUP: Hinman FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
EFINANCIAL LLC: Koch Files Insurance Suit in Florida
ELECTRICITY MAINE: Settlement in Veilleux Suit Wins Final Approval
ELEV8 FOUNDATION: Faces Thompson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Morales Files Suit in Illinois
ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Workers Class Sought
EXEL INC: McMihelk Files Suit in California
F.H. CANN: Greenfeld Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Practices
FANMADE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FCI ALLENWOOD: McLain Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
FORD MOTOR: Woellecke Class Suit Proceeds to Arbitration
FRED LOYA INSURANCE: Fried Files Suit in S.D. California
FRESH HARVEST: Sarmiento Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
GC SERVICES: Kahn Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
GOLDEN LABOR: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Alnylam IPO-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Camping World IPO-Related Suits Dismissed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Bid in Uber Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: GS & Co. Still Defends Suit Over Altice IPO
GOLDMAN SACHS: Parker Files Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Entered in Sea Limited IPO-Related Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Digital Ad Market, Royal Disposable Claims
GROUP III INT'L: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
GSK CONSUMER: Griffin Files Suit in New Jersey
HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA
HAYMAKER ACQUISITION: Bushansky Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
HEALTH PLATFORMS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HERO HEALTH: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HISGRIP LLC: Brighton Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Georgia
HOME BUYERS: Vitiello Suit Removed to N.D. New York
HUEL INC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
HYLAND'S INC: Cruz Files Suit under ADA in New York
INTUIT INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Arbitration Denial in Dohrmann Suit
JCJ BAKERY: Pelaez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bread Packers
JEFFERSON PARISH: Carlisle Suit Seeks Class Certification
JONES SODA CO: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
K12 INC: Faces Lee Suit Over Decline in Share Price
KELLOGG CO: Promotions End Before the Products Expire, Seaman Says
KERRY INC: Brown Files Suit in New York
KNAUF GIPS: Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property, Tyler Says
KNAUF GIPS: Rosenaur Sues Over Corrosive Effects of Gypsum Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Stanfa Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Wang Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall
KS STATEBANK: Saliba TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
LAFAYETTE BAY: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MADISON INDUSTRIAL: Sica Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
MARS PETCARE US: Bakopoulos Files Suit in Illinois
MATTERPORT INC: Wins Dismissal of Stemmelin Class Suit
MAXWELL: Motion to Certify Class in Baloga Suit Shelved
MDL 2752: McCain's Bid for Legal Fees in Yahoo Suit Denied
MEAD JOHNSON: Palmieri Sues Over Misleading Infant Formula Labels
MERITOR INC: Slavens Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bolden Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sias Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
MINTED LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Suit Says
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Davis Files Suit in Oregon
N&M FOOD: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Picou Files Personal Injury Suit in Georgia
NATIONS RECOVERY: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
NEW YORK: Doe Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Circuit
NEW YORK: Z.Q. Files Class Action Under Disabilities Education Act
NOMAD HOTEL: Jariwala Alleges Violation under ADA in California
NUTIVA: Cruz Files Suit under Americans w/ Disabilities Act
ODYSSEY FUN WORLD: Fortillo Files Suit in Illinois
OTTER PRODUCTS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PACIFIC COAST: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
PARADIGM MANAGEMENT: Advanced Int'l Suit Transferred to Florida
PERFECT BAR: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Clark Suit
POSH PEANUT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRESSLER FELT: Weber Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
QUAPAW HOUSE: Bid to Certify Class in Schatz Suit Declared Moot
RADIUS GLOBAL: Campbell Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
REAL TIME: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. New York
ROSSCO CRANE: Powers FLSA Suit Seeks to Conditional Class Status
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Seattle City Files Statement of Good Cause
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Mejico Balks at Subscriptions' Automatic Renewal
SIMON AUERBACER: Kay Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
SIMPLY SELF: Freeman Alleges Workplace Harassment and Retaliation
SKOOP LLC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
SKYROCKET MEDIA: Schultz Files TCPA Suit in Minnesota
SMITH+NOBLE HOME: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SOUTH BAY ENERGY: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
SOUTHERN THERAPY: Bailey and Luft Seek Collective Status
SPEARMINT VENTURES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: Quiruz Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
STAMPS.COM INC: Indiana Retirement System's Suit Wins Class Status
STERICYCLE INC: Poston Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Termination
SYNCREON NORTH: Class Status Bid in Scott Case Terminated as Moot
TAURUS HOLDINGS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Henry Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
THINX INC: Kanan Sues Over Underwear Products' Deceptive Labels
TOM BIHN INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOPO DESIGNS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Joest Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
TSC LLC: Harris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TULSA COUNTY, OK: Feltz Files Class Action
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE: Handorf Suit Transferred to California
UNITED ST ATES: Davis Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Offenders
UNITED STATES: Center for Leadership Files v. HUD Filed in Conn.
UNIVERSAL SCRAP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cespedes Alleges
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Oliva Files Suit in California
UPS GROUND: Post Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VBR BREWING: Faces Reynolds Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
VF JEANSWEAR: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VOSS USA INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
WELLS FARGO: Faces Wood Suit Over 6% Drop in Share Price
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP: Brown Suit Transferred to N.D. California
WHITING OIL: Hystad Ceynar Files Suit in North Dakota
WW INTERNATIONAL: Morrell Balks at Subscriptions' Automatic Renewal
*********
1ST LIGHT ENERGY: Landin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1st Light Energy Inc.
The case is styled as Sammy Landin, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. 1st
Light Energy Inc., a Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0009704
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 19, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment".
1st Light Energy Inc. provides alternative energy solutions. The
Company generates electricity from solar energy.[BN]
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Ponder Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES RYAN PONDER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03977-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from Plaintiff's
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Ponder case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Roberson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN D. ROBERSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03980-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from Plaintiff's
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Roberson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Bocock Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ALLEN BOCOCK v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03981-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Bocock case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Cosgrove Says Firefighters Exposed to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN THOMAS COSGROVE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03984-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Cosgrove case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Faces Foley Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MARCHIONI FOLEY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03985-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Foley case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Faces Hines Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FRANCIS HINES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03993-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from the
Plaintiff's exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Hines case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Faces Raker Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ELLIS RAKER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03978-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from Plaintiff's
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Raker case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Faces Yescas Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR YESCAS JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03996-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from Plaintiff's
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Yescas case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Forland Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MARK FORLAND v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03986-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Forland case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Paul Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FLOYD PAUL JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03976-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from Plaintiff's
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Paul case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Rivera Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MICHAEL RIVERA v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03979-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from Plaintiff's
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Rivera case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Trupiano Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX J. TRUPIANO v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03995-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from Plaintiff's
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Trupiano case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
4E BRANDS: Sanders Suit Transferred to New York
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Sanders, individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 4e Brands North
America, LLC, Defendant, was transferred from the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey with the assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-10713 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Nov. 17, 2020, and assigned Case No.
7:20-cv-09652-UA.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract
Product Liability filed pursuant to the Diversity-Product
Liability.
4e Brands Northamerica LLC is located in San Antonio, TX, United
States and is part of the Soap & Other Detergent Manufacturing
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Ross Mendelsohn, Esq.
Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: (973) 228-9898
Email: mrm@mazieslater.com
ALASKA AIRLINES: Motion to Decertify Clarkson Class Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY CLARKSON v. ALASKA
AIRLINES, INC., HORIZON AIR INDUSTRIES, INC., and ALASKA AIRLINES
PENSION/BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case No.
2:19-cv-00005-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice
entered an order:
1. granting in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Class
Notice and Notice Plan;
2. granting the Defendants' Motion for Decertification; and
3. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Matthew Chatigny
as Class Representative and Modification of Order Granting
Motion for Class Certification in Part.
According to Judge Rice, the Defendants argue the Court's certified
class definition no longer encompasses all 57 of Plaintiff's
identified putative class members. The Plaintiff does not provide
any evidence in the present motion as to how many flight attendants
could be members of the Virtual Credit Class. Based on the evidence
currently before the Court, the Virtual Credit Class no longer
meets the numerosity requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). Even
assuming, arguendo, the Plaintiff's calculations are correct, 17
pilots and one flight attendant is insufficient to maintain
numerosity in this class action.
This matter arises from the Plaintiff's class action filed against
the Defendants on January 7, 2019. The Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on July 1, 2019, which is the operative Complaint. The
allegations raised in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint concern two
of Defendants' employment policies regarding military leave and
their compliance with the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"). The Defendants filed their
answer on July 15, 2019. On May 20, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a
motion to certify two classes.
A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2IvWXzW at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Davis Files Suit under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is styled as Eric Davis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied Interstate
LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00641
(W.D.N.C., Nov. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Allied Interstate, LLC, is an aggressive debt collection agency
that buys old debts from other companies and then makes a profit by
collecting on the debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
The Emory Law Firm, P.C.
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102
Charlotte, NC 28262
Tel: (704) 371-4333
Fax: (704) 371-3015
Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sompolinsky Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Sompolinsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09981 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2020), is brought to seek damages
and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act, as a result of the Defendants'
deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices.
Prior to May 8, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred to
Citibank, N.A. The Citibank, N.A. obligation arose out of
transactions to purchase items which were primarily for personal,
family or household purposes. The Defendant LVNV purportedly
purchased the alleged Citibank, N.A. debt and contracted with
Defendant Alltran to collect the alleged debt.
On May 8, 2020 the Defendant sent the Plaintiff notice (the
"Letter"). The Plaintiff called Defendant on Plaintiff's behalf on
or around June 2, 2020, to dispute the debt as per his rights under
the FDCPA. The Defendant's representative incorrectly informed
Plaintiff that he could not dispute the debt because it was based
on a judgment and that the debt must be disputed in the Court where
the judgment was filed and that the debt was "undisputable." A
second representative of Defendant incorrectly informed Plaintiff
that his dispute must be in writing.
The Plaintiff has a right to dispute the debt with the debt
collector even if the debt is based on a judgment based on the
rights provided under Section 1692g and as indicated by the
Defendant's own letter sent to the Plaintiff. Requiring that the
Plaintiff dispute the validity of his dispute in Court and in
writing violates the consumer rights as provided for under the
FDCPA. Furthermore, it well established in the 2nd Circuit that
oral disputes are a completely valid method of asserting a
consumer's rights.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant's deceptive and incorrect
response to Plaintiff's request overshadowed the Plaintiff's right
to dispute the debt over the phone. The Defendant intentionally
chose to make it difficult for the Plaintiff to dispute the debt,
even though he did it in a proper manner. As a result of the
Defendant's deceptive, misleading and false debt collection
practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ, 07601
Phone: 201-282-6500
Fax: 201-282-6501
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
ALO LLC: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alo, LLC, et al. The
case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Alo, LLC, a California limited
liability company; Does 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No.
3:20-cv-02254-L-JLB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alo, LLC is located in Commerce, California and is part of the
Clothing Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerigas Propane LP.
The case is styled as Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amerigas Propane LP,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02270-ESW (D. Ariz., Nov. 23, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.
AmeriGas Propane, L.P. provides gas utility services. The Company
delivers propane products, as well as offers technical and energy
bills payment services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 900-1288
Email: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
AMFI CORP: Fails to Maintain Stock Ledger, Mitchell Partners Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMFI
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; JACK B. YANCY, CAROLYN PUGH,
BARBARA WOODBURY, MARILYN HESS, CAROL HARRISON, Case No. 2020-0985
(D. Del., Nov. 13, 2020), is brought by a stockholder of AMFI
Corporation for violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law
and to compel compliance therewith, specifically to an order
requiring that AMFI comply with, and that the Director Defendants
cause AMFI to comply with, the affirmative duty to maintain a stock
ledger, as required by Delaware law.
AMFI is a non-reporting company with public shareholders that
trades on the thinly traded OTC market. The Company releases only
unaudited financial statements on an annual basis which do not
contain much of the information and detail which reporting
companies are required to disclose, for example they have neither
notes nor otherwise make disclosure of the information normally
found therein. The Company does not make any disclosures regarding
interested party and related party transactions, relating to
officer and director compensation, insider share ownership, or
transactions in the Company's stock.
On October 7, 2020, the Plaintiff made a demand under 8 Del. C.
Section 220 to inspect various records, including the AMFI's stock
ledger ("Plaintiff's 220 Demand"). On October 29, 2020, AMFI,
through its attorneys, responded ("AMFI's 220 Response") of which
to the extent, is an admission by the Defendants of their knowing
and intentional failure to maintain a stock ledger.
While the Plaintiff continues to attempt to resolve differences
with respect to other documents demanded, as pertinent to this
action, AMFI's 220 Response contains a stark admission that AMFI
knowingly and intentionally does not maintain a stock ledger, but,
instead, prepares and destroys "current stock lists" as needed by
AMFI. Although AMFI does not dispute the Plaintiff's entitlement to
a stock ledger, AMFI does not maintain one and declined to prepare
one in response to the Plaintiff's 220 Demand. This is an admission
that the Defendants intentionally fail to comply with the
obligation under Delaware law to maintain a current stock list for
AMFI. The action seeks an order mandating such compliance and such
additional relief as is requested herein, says the complaint.
Plaintiff MP is an owner of Class A common stock of AMFI and
currently owns of record 3 Class A shares and owns beneficially 30
Class A shares.
AMFI is a Delaware corporation which operates in the insurance and
related services business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
ANDY & EVAN INDUSTRIES: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andy & Evan Industries, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Andy & Evan Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09727 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 18, 2020).
Andy & Evan Industries, Inc. is a clothing brand for children sold
at better retailers around the globe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street
Suite Phr
10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
APOYO FINANCIERO: Maxwell Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apoyo Financiero,
Inc. The case is styled as Lilly Maxwell and Maria Villanueva, on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Apoyo Financiero, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-20-102712 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 18,
2020).
The type of the lawsuit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.
Apoyo Financiero, is a fast-paced and rapid-growth small loans
company serving under-banked communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bevin Elaine Allen Pike, Esq.
Capstone Law APC, 1875 Century Park E Ste
1000, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
Tel: (310) 712-8010
Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
APPLE INC: Alvarado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple, Inc. The case
is styled as Maripily Alvarado, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UBT-2020-0009797 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov.
23, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair
Business Practice".
Apple Inc. designs, manufactures and markets mobile communication
and media devices, personal computers and portable digital music
players. The Company sells a range of related software, services,
accessories, networking solutions, and third-party digital content
and applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL: Court Dismisses 8 Causes of Action in Amerio Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN AMERIO and ANDREW GOLDBERG, Individually and as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of all others similarly situated, as a
class, Plaintiffs, v. GREGORY W. GRAY, JR.; GREGORY P. EDWARDS;
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL LLC; BIM MANAGEMENT LP; BENNINGTON INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT, INC.; and against all in a representative and fiduciary
capacity as acting GENERAL PARTNERS and CONTROL MEMBERS of
BENNINGTON-EVERLOOP LP,; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-AGRIVIDA LLC; ARCHIPEL
CAPITAL-BLOOM ENERGY LP; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-LATE STAGE FUND LP;
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-LINEAGEN LP; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-SOCIAL MEDIA FUND
LP, (1, 2, 3 & 4), and against each said funds Individually as
Limited Partnership Enterprises and as Attorneys and Publishers of
all Private Placement Memorandums in connection with each/any/or
all of the above entities; and Jane Does and Mary Roes (#1-10),
Defendants, Civil Case No. 5:15 CV-00538 (DNH/TWD) (N.D. N.Y.),
Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York dismissed Counts II, III, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI
and XII of the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint
against Defendant Gregory W. Gray, Jr.
The Plaintiffs, pursuant to the Court's Memorandum-Decision and
Order dated July 21, 2020, stipulated to the dismissal.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ywxukr from Leagle.com.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A., Kevin P. Roddy, Esq. --
kroddy@wilentz.com -- Woodbridge, NJ.
CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC, John C. Cherundolo, Esq., Syracuse, NY,
Counsel for Plaintiffs.
BAKERSFIELD DODGE: Stephenson Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bakersfield Dodge,
Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Stephenson, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bakersfield Dodge,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. BCV-20-102693 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 18,
2020).
The type of the lawsuit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.
Bakersfield Dodge, Inc. is a car dealer in Bakersfield,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelsey McCullough Szamet, Esq.
Kingsley & Kingsley
16133 Ventura Blvd Ste 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Tel: (818) 990-8300
Fax: (818) 990-2903
Email: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
BANG & OLUFSEN: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bang & Olufsen
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bang
& Olufsen America, Inc. doing business as: Bang & Olufsen, a
delaware corporation; Does 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No.
3:20-cv-02275-LAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bang & Olufsen America, Inc. is a consumer electronics company
based out of 780 West Dundee Road, Arlington Heights,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
BANNER HEALTH: Settlement in Ramos Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORRAINE M. RAMOS, et al.,
v. BANNER HEALTH, et al., Case No. 15-cv-2556-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order:
1. granting the parties' Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement;
2. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys'
Fees, Expenses, and Class Representative Awards from the
Settlement Fund involving Jeffrey Slocum & Associates,
Inc.;
3. approving the parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement;
4. awarding Lorraine Ramos, Constance Williamson, Karen
McLeod, Robert Moffitt, Cherlene Goodale, Linda Heyrman,
and Delri Hanson an incentive award for serving as class
representatives in the amount of $2,500 each to be paid
from the Settlement Fund;
5. awarding Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs to
Schlichter Bogard & Denton from the Settlement Fund in the
amounts specified under the Class Action Settlement
Agreement;
6. giving the Settlement Administrator to have final
authority to determine the amount of the Net Settlement
Amount and to transmit such amount to the Plan's
recordkeeper to be used to offset the Plan's recordkeeping
fees, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation discussed in
Article 6 of the Class Action Settlement Agreement;
7. retaining jurisdiction over the interpretation and
implementation of the Class Action Settlement Agreement;
8. voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims in this
action against Slocum pursuant to the parties' stipulation
in the Class Action Settlement Agreement; and
9. directing the Parties to bear their own fees and costs
with the exception of those provided for in the Class
Action Settlement Agreement.
Additional settlement terms:
-- INCENTIVE AWARD:
A $2,500 incentive payment for each of the Named
Plaintiffs is reasonable given their participation in
the case and the overall recovery in this case. The
Court approves an $2,500 incentive award to each of the
Named Plaintiffs.
-- ATTORNEYS' FEES:
Slocum agreed to pay $500,000 to settle this class
action, which is significantly more than Slocum's
potential liability of $22,000 at trial. Thus, the
negotiated Settlement Agreement will benefit all Class
members, not just the Named Plaintiffs. This is a good
result for the Class and weighs very heavily in favor
of approving the amount of fees requested. Moreover,
the Plaintiffs' counsel spent an estimated 652 hours of
attorney time litigating this action against Slocum
over the course of roughly four years. If Plaintiffs'
counsel utilized a billable hour fee model using
attorney rates that had been approved in other class
actions, its attorneys’ fees would have been
significantly higher. Having considered the applicable
Johnson factors, the Court finds that $166,667.00 in
attorneys' fees and $8,199.40 in costs is fair and
reasonable. The Court therefore grants the Fee Motion.
This litigation arises out of claims involving alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), against Banner Health, certain of its current and
former employees, and Jeffrey Slocum & Associates for the operation
of the Banner Health 401(k) Plan.
The Plaintiffs filed their putative class action complaint against
a set of Banner Defendants on November 20, 2015 and filed an
amended complaint that added Slocum as a Defendant on November 9,
2016. The Plaintiffs alleged that Slocum breached its duty of
prudence under 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a) by allowing the Plan: to
pay unreasonable fees to its recordkeeper, Fidelity.
A copy of the Court's Order granting motion for final approval of
settlement dated Nov. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/38WL5le at no extra charge.[CC]
BEDSHE INTERNATIONAL: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bedshe International
Co., LTD. The case is styled as Luc Burbon on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Bedshe International Co., LTD, Case No.
1:20-cv-05660 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bedshe International Co., Ltd is located in Walnut, CA, United
States and is part of the Wholesale Sector Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Griffin Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William James Griffin, Ashley Lawley, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Benefytt
Technologies Inc., Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings Inc., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00464, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Nov. 20, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-62371-RAR to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Benefytt is an insurtech company that develops technology to
compare Medicare plans, private health insurance plans and
supplemental products.[BN]
BG PRODUCTS: Goodwin Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Deshoun Goodwin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BG Products, Inc., Case No.
4:20-cv-01569, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on Nov. 23, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00935-FJG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
BG Products, Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of automotive fuel
and oil conditioners, specialty chemicals, greases, tools and
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan E. Brody, Esq.
BRODY & CORNWELL, LLC
7730 Carondelet, Ste. 135
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 932-1068
Email: bbrody@BrodyandCornwell.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Robert Wray, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Fessler, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP-KCMO
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
Phone: (816) 474-6550
Fax: (816) 421-5547
Email: cwray@shb.com
efessler@shb.com
BLUE NILE: Wiretaps Website Users' Personal Data, Johnson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE NILE, INC.; and FULLSTORY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-08183-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2020)
alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA).
According to the complaint, the Defendants wiretap the electronic
communications of visitors to Defendant's Website, Bluenile.com.
The wiretaps, which are embedded in the computer code on the
Website, are used by the Defendants to secretly observe and record
Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic
communications, including the entry of Personally Identifiable
Information (PII), in real time.
Blue Nile, Inc. operates as an jewelry store. The Company offers
rings, wedding bands, earrings, necklaces, pendants, bracelets, and
watches. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
BLUE RAVEN SOLAR: Johansen Suit Transferred to Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kenneth Johansen, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Blue Raven Solar, LLC, Renovation Referral LLC and
Gabriel Alan Solomon, Defendants, was transferred from the District
of Ohio Southern with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02930 to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas)
on Nov. 17, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02116-JCM-BNW.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.
Blue Raven Solar, LLC is engaged in solar panel installation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 488-0400
Fax: (614) 488-0401
Email: murphy@mmmb.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
Paronich Law, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Tel: (508) 221-1510
- and -
Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 488-0400
Fax: (614) 488-0401
Email: misny@mmmb.com
The Defendant Blue Raven Solar, LLC is represented by:
Rand L McClellan, Esq.
Baker & Hostetler LLP
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 462-4782
- and -
James H. Moon, Esq.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
865 South Figueroa Street Ste 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: jamesmoon@dwt.com
- and -
Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Tel: (206) 757-8126
Fax: (206) 757-7126
Email: kennethpayson@dwt.com
The Defendants Renovation Referral LLC and Gabriel Alan Solomon are
represented by:
David J. Kaminski, Esq.
Carlson & Messer
5901 W. Century Boulevard, Ste 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Tel: (310) 242-2204
Fax: (310) 242-2222
Email: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com
- and -
Stephen A Watkins, Esq.
Carlson & Messer
9841 Airport Blvd., Ste. 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Tel: (310) 242-2200
Fax: (310) 242-2222
Email: watkinss@cmtlaw.com
BRILLIANT HOME: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brilliant Home
Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Brilliant Home
Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09855 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brilliant Home Technology, Inc., doing busniess as Sonos,
manufactures consumer electronic products. The Company develops a
technology that gives consumers voice and touch control over
lighting, music, climate, and other smart home products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
BROW 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
CACH LLC: Crandle Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Darius Crandle, Mindo Silalahi, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CACH, LLC;
Resurgent Capital Services, L.P.; Does 1 through 5; Case No.
37-02020-000372474, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Nov. 20, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-02269-GPC-MSB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
CACH LLC is a debt buyer for unpaid debts from large creditors such
as Avant or Citi.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
SEMNAR & HARTMAN LLP
41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92590
Phone: (619) 500-4187
Fax: (888) 819-8230
Email: jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sean P Flynn, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 255-6950
Fax: (949) 474-2060
Email: sflynn@grsm.com
CAMPOS CLEANING: Peralta Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Librado Del Carmen Peralta, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAMPOS CLEANING SERVICE, INC., and
ULISES CAMPOS, as an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-05526 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover
damages for egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law arising out of the Plaintiff's
employment.
Although the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants for 42 or more
hours per week during his employment, the Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL. Specifically, the Plaintiff was only compensated for exactly
30 hours per week by the Defendants despite working 42 or more
hours per week during his employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to perform cleaning
services.
CAMPOS CLEANING SERVICE, INC. is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York with a principal executive office located in
Freeport, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Longo Seeks Refunds of Vacated Dorms Amid COVID
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Longo, Justin Longo, Lois Spatz, Eaven Spatz, Raina Pomeroy,
and Maxwell Nassar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC, Case No. 8:20-cv-02651
(M.D. Fla., Nov. 12, 2020) is brought on behalf of a class of
persons who executed housing contracts with the Defendant but are
not receiving the bargained-for services.
The core offering of private dormitory housing near college
campuses includes: closely-packed shared living quarters, on-site
group study lounge, "organized resident activities through our
Students First Residence Life program," free printing, shuttle
services to the campus, swimming pools, game rooms, fitness centers
and "sophisticated roommate matching program."
According to the complaint, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,
universities throughout Florida and the nation have ordered that
the university campuses be vacated to preserve the safety of the
students and the public. The university-run facilities that
students have been asked to evacuate include dormitories similar in
physical layout to the facilities operated by the Defendant, which
were recognized as unsafe due to the elevated risk of disease
transmission inherent to high-density housing with extensive shared
common areas. Furthermore, these universities, recognizing that it
would be inequitable and improper to charge students for housing
that became unsafe to occupy, have been refunding housing money to
students and their families.
In contrast to the responsible actions of the universities, the
Defendant, who touts itself as "student housing management
experts," is retaining all funds that their tenants have paid --
and continues to demand payment from those who pay month-to-month
-- for room, board, and other services and amenities, even though
the Defendant cannot safely provide them and the students have
moved out, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are students enrolled at the University of Central
Florida, residing in the Defendant's dormitories. The Plaintiffs --
Joseph Longo, Lois Spatz, Raina Pomeroy -- are current guarantor
and co-signer for their respective sons.
Campus Advantage, Inc., is one of the largest property managers for
private dormitory housing near college campuses in our country,
including the University of Central Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
Heather H. Jones, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
4030 Henderson Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33629
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
CAPITAL ONE: Sabzehroo Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Services,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shahrooz Sabzehroo, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Capital One Services,
LLC, DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10615 (C.D.
Cal., Nov. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Capital One Services, LLC provides financial services. The Company
offers credit cards, checking and savings accounts, auto loans,
rewards, and online banking services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN LAW OFFICES
7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (323) 937-0400
Fax: (866) 288-9194
Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com
CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Faces Barrett Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE BARRETT; and ANTHONY DICICCO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARGUARD
ADMINISTRATION, INC.; and ENTERPRISE AUTO SOLUTIONS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-12073 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Carguard Administration, Inc., provides comprehensive vehicle
protection plans to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
188 Oaks Road
Framingham, MA 01701
Telephone: (844) 275-2856
E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com
CHASER LLC: Calcano Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaser LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Evelina
Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Chaser LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09726 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 18, 2020).
Chaser LLC is a transportation and logistics company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street
Suite Phr
10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CITIGROUP INC: City of Sterling Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CITIGROUP INC., MICHAEL L. CORBAT, JOHN C. GERSPACH and MARK A.L.
MASON, Case No. 1:20-cv-09573 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) is brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Citigroup common stock between
January 15, 2016 and October 12, 2020, inclusive, against
Citigroup, Michael L. Corbat, Mark A.L. Mason, and John C.
Gerspach, seeking remedies for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, due to materially false and misleading
statements made, which resulted the decline of the price of stock.
According to the complaint, the Company and the Individual
Defendants, by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material adverse facts, are liable as
participants in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Citigroup common
stock. The scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding
Citigroup's business, operations and management and the intrinsic
value of Citigroup common stock; and (ii) caused the Plaintiff and
other members of the Class to purchase Citigroup common stock at
artificially inflated prices.
Unbeknownst to investors, during the Class Period, despite the
Defendants' repeated statements to the contrary, Citigroup had
failed to take the steps necessary to bring its risk management and
compliance practices in line with regulatory standards or its
obligations under the consent orders and, as a result, was
continuing to expose the Company to heightened regulatory,
operational, reputational and financial risk. Specifically, the
Defendants concealed Citigroup's failure to: (a) implement and
maintain an enterprise-wide risk management and compliance risk
management program, internal controls, or a data governance program
commensurate with the Company's size, complexity, and risk profile;
(b) establish an effective risk governance framework; (c) establish
enterprise-wide risk management policies, standards, and frameworks
necessary to adequately identify, measure, monitor, and control
risks; (d) establish effective front-line units, independent risk
management, internal audit, and control functions; and (e) develop
and execute on a comprehensive plan to address data governance
deficiencies, including data quality errors and failure to produce
timely and accurate management and regulatory reporting.
On August 13, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article
titled "Citigroup Pays Revlon Lenders Nearly $900 Million by
Mistake." The article reported that Citigroup had improperly paid
$900 million to certain lenders of Revlon as a result of an
"operational error." Furthermore, several of the lenders had
refused to return the money and the Company had been forced to seek
court intervention to retrieve the funds. In response, the price of
Citigroup stock declined from $53.35 per share on August 12, 2020
to $52.89 per share on August 13, 2020.
On October 13, 2020, Citigroup issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the third quarter of 2020, including net
income of $3.2 billion, or $1.40 per diluted share, on revenues of
$17.3 billion. On this disclosure, the price of Citigroup stock
declined from a close of $45.88 per share on October 12, 2020 to a
close of $43.68 per share on October 13, 2020, on elevated volume
of 50 million shares traded. As a result of The Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the declines in the price of
Citigroup common stock as detailed herein, the Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says
the complaint.
Plaintiff City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement
System purchased Citigroup common stock.
Citigroup describes itself as a global diversified financial
services holding company whose businesses provide consumers,
corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of
financial products and services, including consumer banking and
credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
trade and securities services, and wealth management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Paul L. Robinson, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
CITY COMPASSIONATE: Conde Suit Has Conditional Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juan Canizales Conde v.
City Compassionate Caregivers, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-05302-MWF-MRW
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an
order:
1. granting conditional certification of a class consisting
of:
"all persons who, on or after four years prior to the
filing of the initial complaint in this action through the
date of class certification, (1) were sent a text message
to their cellular telephone number by or on behalf of CCC,
(2) using a substantially similar dialing system as used
to text message the Plaintiff, (3) for a substantially
similar reason as CCC texted the Plaintiff";
2. appointing Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and Kaufman, P.A. as
class counsel; and
3. granting Plaintiff's request for leave to take discovery.
Discovery shall commence on November 10, 2020. The non-
expert discovery cut-off is January 8, 2021. The expert
discovery cutoff is February 8, 2021. The Plaintiff is
ordered to submit a motion for final certification or a
status report regarding his discovery efforts on or before
March 9, 2021.
Judge Fitzgerald said, "Because the Plaintiff alleges that
thousands of individuals likely received unsolicited calls, the
numerosity requirement is satisfied. Commonality requirement is met
here, as each member of the proposed Class would seek resolution of
the same legal and factual issues at trial. The Court is satisfied
that the Plaintiff's claims are premised on the same facts and
legal theories as the other putative Class members. Accordingly,
the typicality requirement is satisfied. The Court is also
satisfied that a common nucleus of facts and law is a central
feature of the case and classwide methods of proof are available to
establish the Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the predominance
requirement is satisfied. The Court does not foresee any management
difficulties that will preclude this action from being maintained
as a class action. Accordingly, the superiority requirement is
satisfied." The Court grants conditional certification of the Class
subject to the Plaintiff obtaining evidence sufficient to (a)
identify members of the class for purposes of effectuating class
notice and (b) determine individual and classwide damages prior to
entry of final judgment."
The Plaintiff commenced this action on June 15, 2020, alleging
breaches of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
CCC is a cannabis company with a retail stores in Los Angeles. CCC
markets its cannabis products using unsolicited, autodialed text
messages, the Plaintiff contends. Since November 2019, the
Plaintiff has received an unsolicited, telemarketing text message
to his cell phone number from CCC nearly every day.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Km0MbA at no extra charge.[CC]
CONAGRA BRANDS: Michael Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Vicki Michael filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled VICKI MICHAEL, individually and as
representative on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC. PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY RATE PRODUCTION
WORKERS, an employee pension benefit Plan; CONAGRA BRANDS EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, the Plan Administrator; CONAGRA
BRANDS APPEALS COMMITTEE, and DOES I-XX, individual members of the
Plan administrative and/or appeals committees, Case No.
4:18-cv-00277-DCN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho, Pocatello.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 13,
2020, the Hon. Judge David C. Nye entered an order:
1. denying Michael's Motion for Summary Judgment; and
2. granting Conagra's Motion for Summary Judgment; and
The Court said, "Michael has not presented any evidence to support
a finding that the Administrative Committee was biased or tainted
by any conflict of interest. Michael seeks a surcharge, or
recalculation and reimbursement, of past missed benefits. As the
Court finds the Defendants' interpretation is accurate, there is no
lost benefits that need to be recalculated or repaid. Finally, any
other equitable relief or reformation alluded to by Michael in her
briefing is inapplicable in light of the Court's finding above."
On June 18, 2018, Michael filed the Complaint. The Defendants filed
a Motion for More Definite Statement which the Court granted.
Michael dutifully filed an Amended Complaint. In her Amended
Complaint, Michael brings three causes of action; each based on the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Michael brings
these claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.
Vicki Michael began working for Amfac Foods, Inc. at the Lamb
Weston plant in American Falls, Idaho, on October 7, 1974. In June
1988, Conagra Foods, Inc. took over the Lamb-Weston plant. Michael
continued working at the plant until she retired on November 9,
2016. In total, Michael worked at the Lamb-Weston plant for 42
years, 13.5 years for Amfac and 28.5 years for Conagra.
The appellate case is captioned as Vicki Michael v. ConAgra Brands
Inc Pension, et al., Case No. 20-36030, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 27, 2020.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:
-- Appellant Vicki Michael Mediation Questionnaire is due on
December 4, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by December 28, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on January 25, 2021;
-- Appellant Vicki Michael opening brief is due on March 5,
2021;
-- Appellees ConAgra Brands Appeals Committee, ConAgra Brands
Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and ConAgra Brands Inc
Pension Plan for Hourly Production Workers answering brief is due
on April 5, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant VICKI MICHAEL, individually and as
representative on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
is represented by:
John G. Simmons, Esq.
796 Memorial Drive
Idaho Falls, ID 83402-3586
Telephone: (208) 528-9901
E-mail: jsimmons@ida.net
Defendants-Appellees CONAGRA BRANDS INC PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY
PRODUCTION WORKERS, an employee pension benefit Plan, AKA Pension
Plan; CONAGRA BRANDS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
the Plan Administrator, AKA Administrative Committee; and CONAGRA
BRANDS APPEALS COMMITTEE, AKA Appeals Committee, are represented
by:
Brittany M. Falkowski, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 480-1500
E-mail: brittany.falkowski@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Laura L. Malugade, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
555 East Wells St
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 978-5497
E-mail: laura.malugade@huschblackwell.com
CONTACTABILITY.COM: FLSA Collective Status Sought for Brown Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMELIA BROWN, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. CONTACTABILITY.COM, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04817-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the
Court to enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
1. conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective
action under section 216(b):
2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
FLSA claims is sent by regular mail and email to:
"all current and former hourly, non-exempt inside sales
representatives of Defendant who were scheduled to work 40
hours or more in any workweek during the three years
preceding the date of the filing of this Motion and
continuing through the final disposition of this case";
3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;
4. directing the Defendant to provide, within 14 days of an
order granting conditional certification, a roster of all
persons who fit the definition above (the "Potential Opt-
In Plaintiffs") that includes their full names, dates of
employment, job titles, locations worked, last known home
addresses, and personal email addresses; and
5. directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
within 14 days of receipt of the roster using the
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email addresses;
This case involves the Defendant's misclassification of its inside
sales representatives as exempt, salaried employees in order to
avoid paying them overtime. The Plaintiff has submitted allegations
and evidence that she and other similarly situated inside sales
representatives were not paid a salary and that they are non-exempt
employees who are entitled to overtime. The Plaintiff has also
submitted substantial allegations and evidence that Defendant's
misclassification deprives her and other non-exempt inside sales
representatives of their hard-earned overtime pay, the complaint
says.
Contactability is an all-in-one customer acquisition system for
insurance providers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification dated Nov. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UG8ZJv at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: 614-949-1181
Facsimile: 614-386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
COUNTRY FAIR: Petition for Allowance of Appeal Filed in Sciola Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Request Petition for Allowance of Appeal has been filed by
Country Fair, Inc. in the case captioned as Andrea Sciola, Jordan
Budai, and Ashley Gennock, individually and on behalfof all others
similarly situated Respondents, v. Country Fair, Inc., Petitioner,
Case No. 336 WAL 2020, in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on Nov.
16, 2020.
The case type of suit is stated as "Other".
Country Fair, Inc. operates convenience stores. The Company offers
beverages, subs wraps, pizzas, salads, grocery, breakfast, and
grilled items, as well as provides gasoline for cars.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
Richard Jay Parks, Esq.
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
7 W State St Ste 100
Sharon, PA 16146
Phone: (724) 981-1397
- and -
William A. Pietragallo, Esq.
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
3800 One Oxford Ctr
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 263-2000
- and -
Peter St. Tienne Wolff, Esq.
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
1 Oxford Ctr 38th Fl
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 263-4352
The Respondent is represented by:
Kelly Kathleen Iverson, Esq.
Ronald Bruce Carlson, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch,
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
CREDIT CONTROL: Molina Class Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California dismissed the case, JESUS
MOLINA, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00720-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), with prejudice as to the
individual claims, and without prejudice as to the putative class
claims.
On May 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
against the Defendant under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
On Aug. 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a stipulation, signed by all
parties who have appeared, that the action be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
stipulation specifically provides that the parties stipulated to
the dismissal with prejudice of the action, including each claim
and count therein asserted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
The stipulation addresses only the individual claims, but does not
address the putative class claims. Thus, Magistrate Judge Oberto
deemed the stipulation to dismiss the individual claims with
prejudice, and the putative class claims without prejudice.
The Magistrate Judge explained that case law concerning stipulated
dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of
such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does
not require judicial approval. Because the parties have filed a
stipulation for dismissal of the Plaintiff's individual claims with
prejudice, and the putative class claims without prejudice, under
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that's signed by all who have made an
appearance, the case has terminated.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6fpphwo from Leagle.com.
CSAA INSURANCE: Mulkey Files Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSAA Insurance
Exchange. The case is styled as Rodreaka Mulkey, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSAA
Insurance Exchange, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-08120 (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
pursuant to the Diversity-Contract Dispute.
CSAA Insurance Exchange is an Insurance company in Colorado
Springs, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
Edelsberg Law, PA
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
CTC FOOD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CTC Food
International, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. CTC Food
International, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09768 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CTC is a worldwide distributor of Asian food products and services
in all US military commissaries around the globe.[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
CULTURAL CARE: Class Status Bid in Maldanado Suit Due Feb. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maldanado, et al., v.
Cultural Care, Inc. et al., Case No. (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 19,
2020), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting
a Joint Motion to Amend the Class Certification and Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Deadlines.
Class certification and FLSA collective action discovery should be
completed by January 15, 2021. Class certification and FLSA
collective action motions are due by February 1, 2021, with
Oppositions by February 15, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Cultural Care was founded in 1998. The company's line of business
includes providing child care services for infants and
children.[CC]
DELTA AIRLINES: Eierstock Seeks Class Status for COBRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA EIERSTOCK and JOSEPH
RAMOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated,
v. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00269-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
1. certifying Class No. 1 -- Nationwide Four-Year Class:
"all participants are beneficiaries in the Defendant's
Health Plan who: (1) were sent a Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) notice by the Defendant,
during the applicable four-year statute of limitations
period as a result of a qualifying event, as determined by
the Defendant, and (2) did not elect continuation
coverage";
Alternatively, if for any reason the Court is not inclined to
certify a four-year class,
2. certifying the ne-year Class No. 2 -- Alternative
Nationwide One-Year Class:
"all participants are beneficiaries in the Defendant's
Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by the
Defendant, during the February 5, 2019 through March 30,
2020 period as a result of a qualifying event, as
determined by the Defendant, and (2) did not elect
continuation coverage."
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant failed to provide them with a
COBRA notice that complies with the law. The case is ripe for class
certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The
proposed class definition mirrors the definition from another class
certified by Judge Scriven in Vazquez v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., Case
No. 817-cv-00116-MSS-MAP, 2018 WL 3860217, (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7,
2018).
Anita Eierstock is a former long-time employee of Defendant. She
began her career working for Delta in August of 2000 when the
company was still known as Northwest Airlines.
Delta is one of the major airlines of the United States and a
legacy carrier. It is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2IKq8zvat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
LUIS A. CABASSA, P.A.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: 813-224-0431
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
gnichols@wfclaw.com
- and -
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone 813-223-5505
Facsimile: 813-257-0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
DIAMOND PRODUCTS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Products,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Diamond Products, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09767 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Diamond Products, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers adult novelties such as adult
toys, lingerie, games, lotions, and creams.[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
DIESTEL TURKEY: Wetzel Files Suit in New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diestel Turkey Ranch.
The case is styled as Cynthia Wetzel, on behalf of herself and all
other New Mexico consumers similarly situated v. Diestel Turkey
Ranch, Case No. 1:20-cv-01213-JHR-KRS (D.N.M., Nov. 19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Diestel Turkey Ranch is a Natural and Organic Turkey Farm supplying
a full line of raw and ready-to-eat turkeys and turkey products in
the Western United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gretchen Mary Elsner, Esq.
ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC
314 S. Guadalupe Street
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Phone: (505) 303-0980
Email: gretchen@elsnerlaw.org
DOMINION ENERGY: Sziber Seeks to Certify Inspectors Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER SZIBER,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. DOMINION ENERGY,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00117-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification and notice
to be sent (via mail, email, and text message) to:
"all Inspectors who were paid a day rate with no overtime
while working for Dominion within the past three years
(the "Day Rate Inspectors")"; and
2. authorizing him to send notice of this Action to other
similarly situated paid a day rate when staffed to
Dominion in the past three years.
Sziber filed this collective action on behalf of Dominion's
Inspectors who were paid a day rate with no overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Sziber claims Dominion subjected him
and numerous other inspectors to a common and illegal practice of
compensating them on a day rate basis instead of a guaranteed
salary.
Dominion Energy is an American power and energy company
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia that supplies electricity in
parts of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina and supplies
natural gas to parts of Utah, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/35OeEDz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, Esq.
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
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, 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
The Defendant is represented by:
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
J. Clay Rollins, Esq.
Bret G. Daniel, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300
Riverfront Plaza, West Tower
Richmond, VA 23219
E-mail: jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com
clay.rollins@ogletreedeakins.com
bret.daniel@ogletreedeakins.com
E GROUP: Hinman FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD HINMAN, JR.,
Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. THE E GROUP,
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00109-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order granting conditional certification of, and
authorization to send notice to, a class consisting of:
"all employees of E Group who were, at any point in the past
3 years, paid the same hourly rate (or less) for hours worked
over 40 in a work week or "straight time for overtime."
Richard Hinman, Jr. worked for The E Group as an hourly employee.
Although Hinman regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, E Group
did not pay him overtime. Instead, E Group paid Hinman and
similarly situated employees the same hourly rate (or less) for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek
(straight time for overtime). However, these non-exempt employees
were entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Hinman's claims are straightforward: E Group's compensation
plan for these employees violated the FLSA because it failed to pay
them overtime at the proper premium rate, the complaint says.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
dated Nov. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3fciM3x at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@bucknerburch.com
- and -
Troy A. Lanier, Esq.
TROY A. LANIER, PC
430 Ellis Street
Augusta, GA 30901
Telephone: 706-823-6800
E-mail: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com
EFINANCIAL LLC: Koch Files Insurance Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against eFinancial, LLC. The
case is styled as Justin L. Koch, individually, and behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. eFinancial, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01301 (M.D., Fla., Nov. 17, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.
Efinancial, LLC operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers term and whole life, dental, mental health care, vision, and
auto insurance products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
ELECTRICITY MAINE: Settlement in Veilleux Suit Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE VEILLEUX,
JENNIFER CHON, ROCKY COAST FAMILY ACUPUNCTURE PC, and JAMES TILTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ELECTRICITY MAINE, LLC, PROVIDER POWER, LLC, SPARK HOLDCO, LLC,
KEVIN DEAN and EMILE CLAVET, Case No. 1:16-cv-00571-LEW (D. Maine),
the Hon. Judge Lance E. Walker entered an order:
1. granting the Joint Motion to Amend Order on Final
Settlement Approval and Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
for Entry of Final Judgment;
2. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, on behalf of:
"all residential and small business consumers who
purchased electricity from Electricity Maine, LLC during
the period from January 1, 2011 through and including
November 30, 2019."
3. granting the Plaintiffs' Amended and Unopposed Motion for
Award of Attorney Fees and Costs; and
4. dismissing case with prejudice pursuant to the terms of
the parties' Settlement Agreement:
-- Enhancement Award:
Class Counsel has proposed, and the Defendants do not
object to, service payments to each of the four Named
Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000. Accordingly,
Defendants are ordered to pay each Named Plaintiff
$5,000.
-- Attorney Fee Award:
The Plaintiffs' counsel has requested $2,740,793 in
attorney fees, plus $159,206.99 for reimbursement of
non-taxable costs. The Defendants do not oppose the
request. The fee request is based on a percentage of
fund, representing approximately 20 percent of the
$14,000,000 fund made available to pay the potential
claims of class, though it is apparent that the claims
filed in the claim submission process will not result
in payments of as much as $14,000,000. Accordingly,
the Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is
granted. The Defendants are ordered to pay $2,740,793
in attorney fees, plus $159,206.99 for reimbursement
of non-taxable costs.
A copy of the Court's amended final settlement approval order dated
Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nAck9o at no extra charge.[CC]
ELEV8 FOUNDATION: Faces Thompson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Thompson and Marcella Watt, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. ELEV8 FOUNDATION INC. d/b/a
ELEV8 CENTERS d/b/a ELEV8 URBAN RECOVERY HOUSE, LLC d/b/a URBAN
RECOVERY LEE WEISS, and DONNA MAE DEPOLA, Case No. 1:20-cv-09581
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from Defendants
unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours each week. The Plaintiffs were not compensated
for all their hours worked and were automatically deducted 1-hour
meal break each shift despite the fact that they rarely took the
full hour break, as they were routinely required to perform work
during that time period. Due to the Defendants' time-shaving
practices, the Plaintiffs did not receive their proper regular and
overtime compensation for their off-the-clock work.
The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as a counselor and a
patient care coordinator.
The Defendants operate multiple addiction treatment facilities as a
single integrated enterprise under the trade names "ELEV8 CENTERS,"
"ELEV8," and "URBAN RECOVERY" in the state of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Morales Files Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enova International,
Inc. The case is styled as Aimee Morales, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enova International,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06824 (N.D. Ill., November 17,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Personal Injury.
Enova International, Inc. is a technology and analytics company.
The Company provides online financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq.
440 N. McClurg Ct. #803
Chicago, IL 60611
Tel: (818) 600-5535
Email: syed@pricelawgroup.com
ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Workers Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO BARCENAS, on
behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v.
ERMINIA RESTAURANT a/k/a ERMINIA CORP. d/b/a LATTANZI RESTAURANT,
VITTORIO LATTANZI, and FRANCO PAUL LATTANZI, Case No.
1:20-cv-01924-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on:
"all current and former non-exempt employees, including
but not limited to waiters runners, bussers, and
bartenders persons employed by Defendants on or after the
date that is six years before the filing of the
Complaint";
2. approving the distribution of the notice of this FLSA
action to Covered Employees, and including a consent form
(or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA;
3. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
4. approving the consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs to be
sent directly to Plaintiff's counsel;
5. directing the Defendants, within 10 days of the Court's
Order, to produce in Excel format the names, social
security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of
employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses
and all known telephone numbers of all Covered Employees;
6. approving the posting of the notice, along with the
consent forms, in Defendants' places of business where
Covered Employees are employed, by Plaintiff's counsel at
any time during regular business hours; and
7. approving equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of
limitations between the dates of March 20, 2020 and July
6, 2020, and until such time that Plaintiff is able to
send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.
On November 1, 2019, the Plaintiff Ricardo Barcenas was hired by
the Defendants to work as a waiter for the Defendants' ERMINIA
RESTAURANT a/k/a ERMINIA CORP. d/b/a LATTANZI RESTAURANT, which is
an Italian food restaurant doing business as Lattanzi located at
361 West 46th Street, New York. The Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants until January 10, 2020. During his employment, the
Plaintiff suffered from wage and hour violations. He also
personally observed other workers employed by the Defendants
suffering from the same policies, says the complaint.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/331ptQS at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class,
are:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
EXEL INC: McMihelk Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exel Inc. The case is
styled as Timothy McMihelk, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Exel Inc. dba DHL Supply Chain, a
Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0009669 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed Unlimited
Civil Other Employment.
The Case Management Conference is set for 05/18/2021 at 8:30 AM
before Hon. Jayne Lee in Department 10C.
Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain, provides logistics
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
Bokhour Law Group, PC
1901 Avenue Of The Stars
Ste 450, Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 975-1493
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
F.H. CANN: Greenfeld Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Malka Greenfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc., Second Round Sub LLC and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-05759 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2020),
seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act, as a result of the Defendants'
deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices.
Prior to February 11, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred by
the Plaintiff. The alleged obligation arose out of a transaction
involving an alleged debt incurred by the Plaintiff in which the
Plaintiff used funds for purchases which were primarily for
personal, family or household purposes. The Defendant F.H. Cann and
the Defendant Second Round, both debt collectors, are collecting
the alleged debt.
On February 11, 2020, Defendant F.H. Cann sent the the Plaintiff a
written communication (the "Letter") seeking to collect the alleged
debt. This letter did not contain all the requirements of the "G
Notice." Specifically, this letter deceptively fails to identify
who the current creditor and the original creditor is to whom the
alleged debt is owed. The letter only states: "Creditor: Second
Round Sub LLC" and does not modify the word "Creditor" to explain
whether this is the current creditor or the original creditor.
Nowhere does the letter clearly identify who the current creditor
is as is required by the FDCPA.
The least sophisticated consumer cannot decipher from the body of
the letter whom the current creditor is because it is not stated
clearly. This is especially so in the case of Defendant Second
Round, who upon information and belief is a debt-buyer and
therefore it is surely incumbent for the letter to explain whether
the "Creditor" named is the original creditor or the current
creditor. It is deceptive to not clearly state who the creditor is
in any collection letter sent to a consumer, asserts the
complaint.
Accordingly, the Defendant has failed to provide the consumer with
a proper initial communication letter by failing to clearly
identify the original and current creditors of the debt. As a
result of the Defendant's deceptive misleading and false debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, asserts the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York.
The Defendant are "debt collectors".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ, 07601
Phone: 201-282-6500
Fax: 201-282-6501
FANMADE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fanmade Inc. The case
is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Fanmade
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05698 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FanMade Inc. offers fan, league, brand and indie artist inspired
products made to order on everything from tee shirts to phone cases
to home decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
FCI ALLENWOOD: McLain Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McLain v. FCI Allenwood,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01950-SHR-MA (D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order certifying a class of:
"2241 Prisoners requesting relief confined in Federal
Correctional Complex (FCI) Allenwood -- Medium and Low"
On August 23, 2020, the Plaintiff Robert Mclain petitioned the
Court for relief due to COVID-19 pandemic and the imminent danger
the prisoners face from confinement in prison.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kRTZCW at no extra charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Woellecke Class Suit Proceeds to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WERNER WOELLECKE, et al.,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-12430-BAF-APP (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Bernard A. Friedman entered an order:
1. granting the defendant's motion to compel arbitration; and
2. administratively closing the class suit.
The Court said, "The parties must proceed to arbitration in
accordance with their agreement. Once the arbitrator determines
which, if any, of the plaintiffs' claims are arbitrable, he/she
shall proceed to decide those claims."
Ford Motor Company sought to compel arbitration or to dismiss the
second amended complaint (SAC).
Werner Woellecke and Terry Haggerty are former Ford salaried
employees. In their Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege
that in early 2019 Ford selected them, along with approximately 800
other managers, for involuntary termination pursuant to the "fourth
wave" of Ford's Salaried Involuntary Reduction Process (SIRP). Both
plaintiffs were managers who had worked for Ford for 27.5 years. At
the time, Woellecke was 50 years old; Haggerty was 53. The
Plaintiffs allege they "were deliberately denied ERISA 'Bridging'
benefits and unlawfully targeted for separation in violation of
ERISA, and state and federal age discrimination laws.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order granting the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and administratively closing case
dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2HkPkMg at no extra charge.[CC]
FRED LOYA INSURANCE: Fried Files Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred Loya Insurance
Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Albert Fried, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated v. Fred Loya Insurance
Agency, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02259-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 19,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for FCC-Unsolicited
Telephone Sales.
Fred Loya Insurance is a Texas based Hispanic 500 car insurance
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
FRESH HARVEST: Sarmiento Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto Sarmiento, and others similarly situated v. FRESH
HARVEST, INC., FRESH FOODS, INC., RAVA RANCHES, INC., and SMD
LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-07974 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2020)
is brought to assert the Plaintiff and Class members' rights to
prevailing wages and equal pay under the terms of their employment
contracts, compliance with the terms of their working arrangements,
pay for all hours worked including California minimum wages and
liquidated damages, overtime under California law, reimbursement of
necessary expenses, meal and rest break wage premiums, lawful,
accurate and complete paystubs, and waiting time penalties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a domestic worker who
worked alongside foreign and domestic workers employed by
Defendants Fresh Harvest, Fresh Foods, Rava Ranches and SMD
Logistics. The Plaintiff was employed subject to the terms of a
written contract but the Defendants routinely and flagrantly
violated the written contract and the H-2A program regulations upon
which it was based. The Defendants violations caused the Plaintiff
economic harm, including substantial lost wages, provided unfair
economic advantage over their competitors, and violated both state
and federal wage and employment laws.
The Plaintiff is a truck driver who was employed by the Defendants
to transport crops over public roads to their clients packing sheds
in the growing regions of California and Arizona.
Fresh Harvest, Inc. is a farm labor contractor licensed by the
State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dawson Morton, Esq.
Santos Gomez, Esq.
Maria Esmeralda Vizzusi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
1003 Freedom Boulevard
Watsonville, CA 95076
Telephone: (831) 228-1560
Facsimile: (831) 228-1542
Email: dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
esmeralda@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
GC SERVICES: Kahn Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership, et al. The case is styled as Rachel Kahn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC Services
Limited Partnership, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-09798
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
GC Services LP provides adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues. The Company offers customer care call
handling, sales order, entry taking, and tracking, also debt
collection, early delinquency, letter, and mailing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
GOLDEN LABOR: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOLDEN LABOR
SERVICES. The case is styled as Dulce Maria SantaCruz Sanchez, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GOLDEN LABOR SERVICES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;
PACIFIC AG MANAGEMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; Case No.
BCV-20-102729 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Nov. 20, 2020).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited".
Golden Labor Services is located in Shafter, California. This
organization primarily operates in the Help Supply Services
business/industry within the Business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Alnylam 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 amended complaint in a putative
securities class action in New York relating to Alnylam
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s US$805 million November 2017 public
offering of common stock is still pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September
12, 2019 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s (Alnylam) $805 million November
2017 public offering of common stock.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Alnylam and
certain of its officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote 2,576,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $322 million.
On December 20, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint filed on November 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: Camping World IPO-Related Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
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
putative class action suits related to Camping World Holdings,
Inc.'s initial public offering in 2016, have been dismissed.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, New
York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, beginning in December
2018.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Camping
World Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, as
well as certain of its stockholders.
As to the underwriters, the complaints relate to three offerings of
Camping World common stock, a $261 million October 2016 initial
public offering, a $303 million May 2017 offering and a $310
million October 2017 offering.
GS&Co. underwrote 4,267,214 shares of common stock in the October
2016 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $94 million, 4,557,286 shares of common
stock in the May 2017 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $126 million and 3,525,348 shares of common
stock in the October 2017 offering representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $143 million.
GS&Co. and the other defendants moved to dismiss the Illinois state
court action on April 19, 2019 and the Illinois district court
action on May 17, 2019.
On August 5, 2020, the Illinois district court approved a
settlement among the parties to the Illinois district court action.
On August 18, 2020, the Illinois state court action was dismissed
and on September 8, 2020, the New York state court action was
dismissed.
Under the terms of the settlement, the firm will not be required to
contribute to the settlement.
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 Certification Bid in Uber 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
plaintiffs in the district court action moved for class
certification in the putative securities class action suit related
to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s $8.1 billion May 2019 initial public
offering.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions filed
beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of
San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s $8.1 billion
May 2019 initial public offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and
certain of its officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $1.6 billion. On June 17
and June 30, 2020, defendants in the state court action filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed on
February 11, 2020.
On August 7, 2020 defendants' motion to dismiss the district court
action was denied. On September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs in the
district court action moved for class certification.
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: GS & Co. Still Defends Suit Over Altice IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
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.) continues to defend putative securities
class suits related to Altice USA, Inc.'s $2.15 billion June 2017
initial public offering.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York
Supreme Court, County of Queens, and the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York beginning in June 2018, relating
to Altice USA, Inc.'s $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public
offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include
Altice and certain of its officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $368 million.
On June 26, 2020, the court dismissed the amended complaint in the
state court action, and on September 4, 2020, plaintiffs moved for
leave to file a consolidated amended complaint.
Plaintiffs in the district court action filed a second amended
complaint on October 7, 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.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Parker Files Class Action
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOLDMAN SACHS
MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al. The case is styled as Michael T. Parker,
Patrice Parker, on behalf of themselves individually and similarly
situated v. GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE COMPANY, NEWREZ LLC, SHELLPOINT
MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. 483904V (Md. Cir. Ct., Montgomery
Cty., Oct. 30, 2020).
The case type is stated as "OTHER TORTS".
Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company is located in New York and is part
of the Mortgage Banking Industry.[BN]
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Entered in Sea Limited IPO-Related 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 parties
in the putative securities class action suit related to Sea
Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering of
American depositary shares, entered into a settlement agreement,
which is subject to court approval.
Goldman Sachs Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in
a putative securities class action filed on November 1, 2018 in New
York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to Sea Limited's
$989 million October 2017 initial public offering of American
depositary shares.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited
and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote
28,026,721 American depositary shares representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $420 million.
On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss on March 26, 2019.
On October 17, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which is subject to court approval.
Under the terms of the agreement, the firm will not be required to
contribute to the settlement
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: Monopolizes Digital Ad Market, Royal Disposable Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Disposable Medical & Safety Supplies, Inc. d/b/a Royal Dental
Supply, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03291 (D.D.C., Nov.
13, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff for equitable relief and
treble damages under the Sherman Act and for suffering economic
losses due to Google's monopolization.
The United States Department of Justice and eleven state attorneys
general recently filed a civil antitrust action against Google for
unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for online and
search advertising. The present action stems from Google's monopoly
conduct in the separate markets for online display advertising.
According to the complaint, over the past several years, Google
leveraged its stranglehold on online search and search advertising
to gain an illegal monopoly in brokering display advertising, i.e.,
the placement of advertisements on other companies' Websites.
Google achieved this market dominance in part by acquiring rivals
in the online advertising space, conditioning access to its
search-results data and YouTube video advertising platform upon the
purchase of its separate display advertising services, and ensuring
those systems were not compatible with those of its competitors in
online advertising. Forty-nine state attorneys general are
currently conducting antitrust investigations of Google's conduct
in digital advertising markets.
Because of its pervasive monopoly conduct, Google now controls the
"ad tech stack" comprising the intermediary services between
advertisers, who pay to place digital advertisements, and
publishers who are paid to publish those ads on their Websites.
Companies that wish to place or publish online advertisements have
little choice but to pay Google for its advertising services,
including its instantaneous auction platforms, and Google's
monopolization of this intermediation market has enabled it to
favor its own advertising platforms and products. Google's
extraction of monopoly rents through fees charged to both
advertisers and publishers has resulted in higher prices paid by
advertisers, higher consumer prices, lower payments to publishers
of online display advertisements, and reduced competition in the
purchase and placement of such advertisements.
The Plaintiff dealt directly with Google in its capacity as display
advertising broker, having placed online advertisements using
Google's services. The Plaintiff, like the other class members,
suffered economic losses due to Google's monopolization and seeks
appropriate equitable relief and damages through this action, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a private dental supply business based in Miami
Garden, Florida, and organized under the laws of Florida.
Google LLC is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, including online advertising technologies
and a search engine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Schimel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD E SCHIMEL, LLC
7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 West
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3244
Telephone: (240) 395-4400
Email: rschimel@lawofficesres.com
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
April Lambert, Esq.
Eva Kane, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
alambert@radicelawfirm.com
ekane@radicelaw.com
GROUP III INT'L: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Group III International, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Group III International,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09728 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 18,
2020).
Group III International, Inc. is a Warehouse in Pompano Beach,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street
Suite Phr
10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
GSK CONSUMER: Griffin Files Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GSK CONSUMER HEALTH,
INC. The case is styled as Tiffany Griffin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GSK CONSUMER HEALTH,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02024-KSM (D.N.J., Nov. 23, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
GSK is as consumer healthcare company which develops and markets
some of the world's best loved brands and products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Magana, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 500
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee Company, LTD. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee
Company, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09681 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
17, 2020).
Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee Company, Ltd. distributes and supplies
coffee products. The Company offers roasted, whole bean, and ground
coffee products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
HAYMAKER ACQUISITION: Bushansky Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. HAYMAKER ACQUISITION CORP. II, STEVEN J. HEYER, ANDREW
R. HEYER, WALTER F. MCLALLEN, MICHAEL J. DOLAN, and STEPHEN W.
POWELL, Case No. 656268/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Nov.
13, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
public stockholders of Haymaker Acquisition Corp. II against
Haymaker and the members of its Board of Directors arising out of
the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Company's proposed merger with ARKO Holdings Ltd. (the
"Proposed Transaction").
On September 9, 2020, Haymaker issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into a Business Combination Agreement dated
September 8, 2020 (the "Merger Agreement") with Arko. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Punch US Sub, Inc., a
consolidated subsidiary of ARKO Corp. ("New Parent"), will merge
with and into Haymaker, with Haymaker surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of New Parent (the "First Merger"), and Punch Sub Ltd.,
a consolidated subsidiary of New Parent, will merge with and into
Arko, with Arko surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of New
Parent (the "Second Merger" and together with the First Merger, the
"Business Combination").
Contemporaneously with the execution of the Merger Agreement, New
Parent, Haymaker and each of the entities that are party thereto
and certain minority investors collectively holding 32% of GPM
Investment, LLC (the "GPM Minority Investors") entered into an
equity purchase agreement (the "GPM Equity Purchase Agreement")
pursuant to which, at closing of the Business Combination, New
Parent will purchase from the GPM Minority Investors their equity
interests in GPM in exchange for shares of New Parent common stock.
GPM operates the business of Arko and Arko currently holds 68% of
the outstanding equity of GPM. As a result of the Business
Combination, New Parent will indirectly own 100% of GPM.
Allegedly, upon consummation of the Proposed Transaction, depending
on whether the Company's public stockholders exercise their
redemption rights and which consideration option Arko's ordinary
shareholders elect to receive, Haymaker's stockholders are expected
to own between 19.7% and 28.8% of the post-Business Combination
entity. The value to Haymaker stockholders contemplated in the
Proposed Transaction and the process by which defendants propose to
consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to
Plaintiff and the other public stockholders of the Company. The
Individual Defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of their
fiduciary duties owed to Haymaker stockholders, and a violation of
applicable legal standards governing the Individual Defendants'
conduct.
Moreover, on November 6, 2020, Haymaker filed a Schedule 14A
Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which
recommends that Haymaker stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Arko's projections and the
financial analyses relied upon by the Board in connection with its
decision to approve the Proposed Transaction; (ii) potential
conflicts of interest faced by the Company's financial advisors;
and (iii) the background process leading to the Proposed
Transaction as well as Haymaker's public stockholders' expected
ownership of the combined company.
For these reasons, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants
from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless
and until the Defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary duty or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover
damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations of
their fiduciary duties, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Haymaker.
Haymaker is a blank check company incorporated as a Delaware
corporation for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock
exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or
similar business combination with one or more businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
HEALTH PLATFORMS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Platforms
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Health Platforms Group, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05695 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Health Platforms, Inc. provides a platform that connects patients
and healthcare providers online. The Company offers patients with
tools to find, evaluate, and engage with the healthcare providers
to address specific needs and preferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
HERO HEALTH: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hero Health, Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Hero Health, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09860
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hero Health, Inc. provides software and hardware solutions. The
Company offers integrated and automated in-home system which
dispenses medication, has audible and digital reminders, automated
refills, and provides real-time as well as historical adherence
data.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
HISGRIP LLC: Brighton Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HisGrip LLC, et al.
The case is styled as David Brighton, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. HisGrip LLC doing business as:
HisGrip Home Care, Omonike Aremu, Kola Aremu, Case No.
1:20-cv-04760-ELR (N.D. Ga., Nov. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation.
HisGrip Home Care is a private home care provider licensed by the
Georgia Department of Health to provide non-medical services to
Metro Atlanta.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Michael David Forrest, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (678) 780-4880
Email: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com
HOME BUYERS: Vitiello Suit Removed to N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lisa Vitiello, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Home Buyers Resale Warranty Corp.
doing business as: 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty; Home Buyers Warranty,
Corp. doing business as: 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty, Case No.
EF2020570, was removed from the Saratoga County Supreme Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on
Nov. 19, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01426-TJM-ATB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Home Buyers Warranty provides builders, manufacturers, homeowners,
and real estate professionals with warranty products for new,
manufactured, and modular homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Mastropietro, Esq.
MASTROPIETRO LAW GROUP
63 Franklin Street
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Phone: (518) 226-0700
Fax: (518) 226-0701
Email: jpm@mastrolgpllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Louise A. Kelleher, Esq.
WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN AND DIAL
3344 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: (404) 876-2700
Fax: (404) 875-9433
Email: lkelleher@wwhgd.com
HUEL INC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huel Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Huel Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09668 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
17, 2020).
Huel Inc. provides nutritional food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
HYLAND'S INC: Cruz Files Suit under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Hyland's, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Hyland's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09676
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 17, 2020).
Hyland's is a brand of homeopathic products sold in the United
States and Canada. Hyland's operates in the United States as
Hyland's Inc and in Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
INTUIT INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Arbitration Denial in Dohrmann Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW DOHRMANN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
INTUIT, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and H&R BLOCK, INC.; et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-15466 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of
Intuit's motion to compel arbitration with instructions to compel
arbitration.
The case is a putative class action against Intuit, which offers
"TurboTax" online tax preparation software, alleging state law
claims relating to the named Plaintiffs' 2018 federal tax returns.
The district court denied Intuit's motion to compel arbitration.
During the relevant timeframe, a user accessing a TurboTax account,
after entering a user ID and password, was required to click a
"Sign In" button, directly under which contains the Turbo Terms of
Use. The terms "Turbo Terms of Use," "TurboTax Terms of Use" and
"Privacy Statements" were each light blue hyperlinks which, if
clicked, directed the user to a new webpage. A user clicking on
the hyperlink "TurboTax Terms of Use" was directed to a copy of the
"Intuit Terms of Service for TurboTax Online Tax Preparation
Services," which contained the arbitration clause.
TurboTax's website therefore required users to "affirmatively
acknowledge" the agreement before proceeding, and the website
contained explicit textual notice that continued use will act as a
manifestation of the user's intent to be bound. The relevant
warning language and hyperlink to the Terms of Use were
conspicuous. TurboTax's website therefore provided sufficient
notice to a reasonably prudent internet user of its Terms of Use,
which include an arbitration clause.
The Terms of Use provide both that "any dispute or claim" "will be
resolved by binding arbitration" and that "any party to the
arbitration may at any time seek injunctions or other forms of
equitable relief from any court of competent jurisdiction."
Relying on the latter language, the district court indicated that
even if the dispute between the Plaintiffs and Intuit was subject
to arbitration, it could nonetheless itself adjudicate the
Plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief.
The Ninth Circuit agrees with Intuit that the contract only permits
the district court to issue equitable relief in aid of arbitration,
not determine the merits of an arbitrable dispute. The language
"any party to the arbitration," suggests that arbitration still
applies to all disputes, but that in addition, the parties are
entitled to pursue equitable remedies before courts. If the
parties intended to carve out an exception to arbitration for all
equitable claims, they could have done so without this language and
because the parties included that language, it is plausible and a
permissible contract interpretation that the equitable claims
exception was intended to apply only to claims designed to maintain
the status quo between the parties.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed with instructions to
compel arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Aug. 11, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ecy6xa from Leagle.com.
JCJ BAKERY: Pelaez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bread Packers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antonieta Pelaez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. JCJ BAKERY CORP. d/b/a NICOSIA'S BAKERY, LA NICOSIA
BAKERY CORP. d/b/a LA NICOSIA BAKERY, NICOSIA BAKERY DISTRIRUTORS
CORP, CHARLES NICOSIA, JOSEPH NICOSIA and JOSELLE NICOSIA, Case No.
1:20-cv-09517 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid "spread of hours" premium, liquidated and statutory damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per
week but was not paid ay the statutory rate of time and one-half as
required by state and federal law. Additionally, the Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State
minimum wage to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt bread
packer.
JCJ BAKERY owns and operates a wholesale bakery located in Bronx,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street – 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jcpclaw.com
JEFFERSON PARISH: Carlisle Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR CARLISLE,
individually and on Behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated/the Representative Member of A Class, v. NEWELL NORMAND,
SHERIFF AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, Case No. 2:16-cv-03767-JTM-JVM (E.D. La.), the Petitioners
Taylor Eugene Carlisle and Emile Heron move the Court to issue an
Order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.
1. certifying their claims against the Sheriff of Jefferson
Parish as a class action;
2. defining the class and appointing counsel under Rule
23(g); and
3. directing the preparation of a appropriate notice to the
class that has been certified in the most practicable
means under the circumstances, identifying in plain easily
understood language.
The Plaintiffs define the class at issue as:
"Those individual natural persons who, while participating
as probationers in the 24th Judicial District Court Drug
Court program pursuant to Plea Agreement (hereinafter the
"probationers") under the Drug Court statute, LSA-R. S.
13:5304, have been sanctioned, for alleged probation
infractions and sentenced with jail time in the Jefferson
Parish Correctional Center (JPCC) or other location at the
Sheriff's direction and through office of his deputies,
including those who were incarcerated to await beds in a
rehabilitation facility or taken to facility and to whom,
despite judicial order and/ or in violation of the Drug
Court statute, and La. Code Crim Proc Art. 880, and
Art.900 and related regulations, the Sheriff of Jefferson
Parish did not calculate and provide "credit for time
in custody" upon the probationers' revocation and re-
sentencing to "hard labor" to be served in the Department
of Public Safety and Corrections.
The Plaintiffs, for the purpose of preserving the record and their
right to appeal, also define a second class:
"Those individual natural persons who, while participating
as probationers in the 24th Judicial District Court Drug
Court program pursuant to Plea Agreement (hereinafter the
"probationers") under the Drug Court statute, LSA-R. S.
13:5304, were deprived by the Sheriff of earned "good time
credit" after being have been sanctioned with jail time by
the drug court judges, or such other time directed by
order the Drug Court."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/373YPID at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Petitioners are:
Marie Riccio, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARIE RICCIO
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone (504) 528-9500 EXT 239
Facsimile (206) 457-1945
E-mail: marie@officericcio.com
JONES SODA CO: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jones Soda Co. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Jones Soda Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09666
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 17, 2020).
Jones Soda Co. is a beverage company based in Seattle, WA. It
bottles and distributes soft drinks, non-carbonated beverages,
energy drinks, and candy. Jones Cane Sugar Soda is a carbonated
soft drink that has many unusual flavors that are not offered by
other soft drink makers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
K12 INC: Faces Lee Suit Over Decline in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------
YUN CHAU LEE, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. K12 INC.; NATHANIEL A. DAVIS; and TIMOTHY
MEDINA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01419 (E.D. Va., Nov. 19,
2020) is a class action on behalf of a class who purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of K12 stock between April 27,
2020 and September 18, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violation of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) K12 lacked the technological
capabilities, infrastructures, and expertise to support the
increased demand for virtual and blended education necessitated by
the global pandemic; (ii) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols
and protections to prevent the disabling of its computer system;
(iii) K12 was unable provide the necessary levels of administrative
support and training to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv)
based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of K12's common shares,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.
K12 Inc. is a technology-based education company. The Company
offers proprietary curriculum, software, and educational services
created for online delivery to students in kindergarten through
12th grade, or K-12. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory S. Duncan, Esq.
222 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Telephone: (434) 979-8556
E-mail: gregdun@ntelos.net
- and -
Andrea Farah, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: afarah@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
KELLOGG CO: Promotions End Before the Products Expire, Seaman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Seaman, Kyle Corbin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kellogg Company, Case No.
1:20-cv-05520 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) seeks damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
practices with regards to its promotions offering free merchandise
or services to shoppers who purchase their products, including Eggo
Waffles, Pop Tarts and iconic cereal brands.
These on-pack promotions are significant to shoppers who previously
relied on Sunday circulars and in-aisle coupons to influence their
decisions on which products to buy. The use of promotions is a key
factor in the several seconds it takes for shoppers to choose which
of the many products to buy. Unfortunately for consumers, most of
them who buy the products will be unable to receive the free offers
made by the Defendant. The Defendant's practice of offering
promotions to shoppers is misleading because the promotions expire
long before the shelf-life of the Products.
Reasonable consumers are not so innately distrustful of companies
and expect that all aspect of consumable items, including
promotions, are functional throughout their shelf-life. The
Defendant can easily cease these practices by printing fewer boxes
which contain its promotions, based on the number of products it
expects to sell within the time period of the offer. However, the
Defendant is incentivized to print more boxes with promotions than
it will sell during the offer period because these offers increase
sales of their products.
Most shoppers who bought the items in part based on the promotions
are not able to take advantage of the free offers. The Defendant
should offer promotions that expire consistent with the shelf-life
of the Products, because not doing so is unfair and misleading to
shoppers. The Defendant sold more of the Products and at higher
prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers.
The value of the Products that the Plaintiffs purchased was
materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. Had
the Plaintiffs and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Products or would have paid less for them. As a
result of the false and misleading labeling, the Products are sold
at a premium price, approximately no less than $ 2.99 per Eggo
Waffles and Pop Tarts and $ 4.99 for cereals, excluding tax,
compared to other similar Products represented in a non-misleading
way, and higher than the price of the Products if represented in a
non-misleading way, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Product within their district and/or
State for personal consumption.
Kellogg's Company runs annual or semi-annual promotions through
on-pack promotions offering free merchandise or services to
shoppers who purchase their products, including Eggo Waffles, Pop
Tarts and iconic cereal brands.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
KERRY INC: Brown Files Suit in New York
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kerry Inc. The case
is styled as Jaclynn Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kerry Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09730 (S.D N.Y., Nov. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Fraud.
Kerry Inc. is a public food company headquartered in Ireland. It is
quoted on the Dublin ISEQ and London stock exchanges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
KNAUF GIPS: Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property, Tyler Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Tyler, individually and on behalf of persons similarly
situated v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03208 (E.D. La., Nov. 24, 2020) is brought related
to a structure on real property containing defective Chinese
manufactured drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported,
exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed,
sold and/or installed by the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' drywall is
predominantly composed of gypsum. In "defective" drywall (such as
that designed, manufactured, exported, imported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by
the Defendants herein), 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.
Although the drywall functions according to is intended purpose as
a building component, it is unfit for this purpose due to the
damaging side effects and/or because its use is so inconvenient
that the Plaintiff would not have purchased the home had the side
effects been disclosed by the Defendants. 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
Defendants' drywall.
The Defendants recklessly, wantonly, and/or negligently
manufactured, exported, imported, distributed, delivered, supplied,
inspected, installed, marketed and/or sold the defective drywall at
issue in this litigation. After learning that their products being
sold in the United States were defective, the Defendants took no
action required under federal law (Consumer Product Safety Act) to
notify their importers, distributors, agents, or consumers of the
harmful effects caused by their drywall. As a direct and proximate
result of the Defendants' defective drywall, the Plaintiff has the
need for injunctive relief in the form of repair and remediation of
their home, rescission of contracts, emergency/corrective notice,
and testing, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Johnny Tyler owns a property in the State of Florida that
contains drywall manufactured by the Defendants.
Knauf GIPS, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[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
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KNAUF GIPS: Rosenaur Sues Over Corrosive Effects of Gypsum Drywall
------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Rosenaur on behalf of Estate of Veronica Griffith Rayborn
v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No.
2:20-cv-03224 (E.D. La., Nov. 24, 2020) is brought related to a
structure on real property containing defective Chinese
manufactured drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported,
exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed,
sold and/or installed by the Defendants.
The complaint contends that the Defendants' drywall is
predominantly composed of gypsum. In "defective" drywall (such as
that designed, manufactured, exported, imported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by
the Defendants herein), 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
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.
Although the drywall functions according to is intended purpose as
a building component, it is unfit for this purpose due to the
damaging side effects and/or because its use is so inconvenient
that the Plaintiff would not have purchased the home had the side
effects been disclosed by the Defendants. 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
Defendants' drywall.
The Defendants tortiously manufactured, exported, imported,
distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, installed, marketed,
sold and/or installed defective drywall, which was unfit for its
intended purpose and unreasonably dangerous in its normal use
because the drywall caused corrosion and damage to personal
property in the Plaintiff's home, residence, or structure. After
learning that their products being sold in the United States were
defective, the Defendants took no action required under federal law
(Consumer Product Safety Act) to notify their importers,
distributors, agents, or consumers of the harmful effects caused by
their drywall. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants'
defective drywall, the Plaintiff has the need for injunctive relief
in the form of repair and remediation of their home, rescission of
contracts, emergency/corrective notice, and testing, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Veronica Rosenaur o.b.o. Estate of Veronica Griffith
Rayborn owns real property in the State of Louisiana that contains
a structure with drywall manufactured by the Defendants.
Knauf GIPS is a leading manufacturer of building materials and
systems.[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
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KNAUF GIPS: Stanfa Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald & Patricia Stanfa, individually and on behalf of persons
similarly situated v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN
CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03206 (E.D. La., Nov. 24, 2020) is
brought related to a structure on real property containing
defective Chinese manufactured drywall that was designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied,
inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the Defendants.
The complaint contends that the Defendants' drywall is
predominantly composed of gypsum. In "defective" drywall (such as
that designed, manufactured, exported, imported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by
the Defendants herein), 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.
Although the drywall functions according to is intended purpose as
a building component, it is unfit for this purpose due to the
damaging side effects and/or because its use is so inconvenient
that the Plaintiff would not have purchased the home had the side
effects been disclosed by the Defendants. 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
Defendants' drywall.
After learning that their products being sold in the United States
were defective, the Defendants took no action required under
federal law (Consumer Product Safety Act) to notify their
importers, distributors, agents, or consumers of the harmful
effects caused by their drywall. As a direct and proximate result
of the Defendants' defective drywall, the Plaintiff has the need
for injunctive relief in the form of repair and remediation of
their home, rescission of contracts, emergency/corrective notice,
and testing, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs Ronald & Patricia Stanfa own a property in the State of
Alabama that contains drywall manufactured by the Defendants.
Knauf GIPS, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd.,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[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
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KNAUF GIPS: Wang Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Jinjiang Wang and Ruby Xiaochun Xi, individually and on behalf
of persons similarly situated v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03221 (E.D. La.,
Nov. 24, 2020) is brought related to a structure on real property
containing defective Chinese manufactured drywall that was
designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants.
The complaint contends that the Defendants' drywall is
predominantly composed of gypsum. In "defective" drywall (such as
that designed, manufactured, exported, imported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by
the Defendants herein), 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.
Although the drywall functions according to is intended purpose as
a building component, it is unfit for this purpose due to the
damaging side effects and/or because its use is so inconvenient
that the Plaintiff would not have purchased the home had the side
effects been disclosed by the Defendants. 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
Defendants' drywall.
After learning that their products being sold in the United States
were defective, the Defendants took no action required under
federal law (Consumer Product Safety Act) to notify their
importers, distributors, agents, or consumers of the harmful
effects caused by their drywall. As a direct and proximate result
of the Defendants' defective drywall, the Plaintiff has the need
for injunctive relief in the form of repair and remediation of
their home, rescission of contracts, emergency/corrective notice,
and testing, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs Jay Jinjiang Wang and Ruby Xiaochun Xi own real property
in the State of Louisiana that contains drywall manufactured by the
Defendants.
Knauf GIPS, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd.,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[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
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KS STATEBANK: Saliba TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricci Saliba, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. KS Statebank
Corporation,, Case No. 2:20-cv-00503-JAT (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class:
"all persons within the United States who, (1) within the
four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, (2)
received a text message from Roy Meshel while he was
employed at KS Statebank Corporation, (3) advertising
and/or promoting one or more KS Statebank Corporation
mortgage loan products and/or mortgage loan rates, (4)
using the texting software provided by Skipio LLC, (5) to
said person's cellular telephone number, (6) where the
person's telephone number was not obtained by KS Statebank
Corporation from a non-party lead generator, and was
instead obtained by Mr. Meshel";
2. appointing Plaintiff as Class representative; and
3. appointing, IJH Law, Hiraldo P.A. and Eisenband Law, P.A.
as Class counsel.
From September 24, 2018 through May 11, 2020, Roy Meshel was
employed by the Defendant as a mortgage loan originator, operating
out of one of Defendant's mortgage loan production offices in
Scottsdale, Arizona. On numerous dates starting on October 18, 2019
through January 16, 2020, Mr. Meshel sent marketing text messages
using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to Plaintiff's
cellular phone advertising the Defendant's mortgage loan products,
says the complaint.
The Defendant is a bank that, among other financial activities,
offers various loan products to consumers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/36S9XrN at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 786-496-4469
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
LAFAYETTE BAY: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lafayette Bay
Products, LLC. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Lafayette Bay Products, LLC doing business as: Stick Beverages,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05697-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lafayette Bay Products, LLC is located in Excelsior, Minnesota and
is part of the Manufacturing Sector Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MADISON INDUSTRIAL: Sica Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANK SICA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MADISON INDUSTRIAL SERVICES TEAM, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20076869,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on November 25, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-08347 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 meal period premiums,
non-compliant wage statements, and final wages not timely paid.
Madison Industrial Services Team, Limited Partnership, is a
provider of turnaround/outage and specialty services, with its
principal place of business in Pasadena, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas M. McInerney, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
Kevin Ha, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK& STEWART, P.C.
Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-4810
Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
E-mail: tmm@ogletree.com
sarah.zenewicz@ogletree.com
kevin.ha@ogletree.com
MARS PETCARE US: Bakopoulos Files Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mars Petcare US, Inc.
The case is styled as John Bakopoulos, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06841 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Mars Petcare US, Inc. provides pet care products. The Company
offers pet health care and food products. Mars Petcare serves
customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu , III, Esq.
Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC
1644 Bracken Rd.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Tel: (313) 303-3472
Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com
- and -
Gregory F Coleman, Esq.
Greg Coleman Law PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Tel: (865) 247-0080
Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
MATTERPORT INC: Wins Dismissal of Stemmelin Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN STEMMELIN,
individually and behalf of those similarly situated, v. MATTERPORT,
INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04168-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Alsup entered an order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss class suit.
The Court said, "In this false and deceptive advertising putative
class action, the defendants move to dismiss for lack of standing
and for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the
motion is granted. Mr. Stemmelin may move for leave to amend his
complaint by December 3 at noon. Any such motion must include as an
exhibit a redlined version of the proposed amendment that clearly
identifies all changes from the amended complaint. If Mr. Stemmelin
moves for leave to amend, he should be sure to plead his best
case."
Matterport, Inc., and its officers market "3D cameras that create
3D models of real-world places, which have many potential
applications, including in connection with real estate sales."
Supporting these cameras, the defendants also offer services such
as software for three-dimensional image manipulation and cloud
storage and advertise the Matterport Service Partner program, which
provides perks such as "[p]re-qualified local leads seeking 3D
scanning services" and all "the necessary resources and materials
you need to sell Matterport on your own and generate business too."
Allegedly, the defendants pitch the program as a way to "[b]e your
own boss, set your own hours, and earn what you want. For only
$4,100[] in up- front investment and minimal training, you'll be on
your way to a lucrative, self-owned business."
A copy of the Court's Order granting motion to dismiss dated Nov.
9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nAXgbr at no extra charge.[CC]
MAXWELL: Motion to Certify Class in Baloga Suit Shelved
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baloga et al v. Maxwell et
al, Case No. 8:19-cv-02936 (M.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 27, 2019), the
Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an order setting aside
the Motion to Certify Class.
The Court will defer a ruling on this motion until after the
parties have completed mediation.
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.[CC]
MDL 2752: McCain's Bid for Legal Fees in Yahoo Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, denied Objector James McCain's motion for
attorneys' fees and incentive award.
On Aug. 5, 2020, McCain his motion seeking an attorneys' fee award
of $260,000 and an incentive award of $2,500. He contends that
these awards are appropriate because he benefitted the class by
$7.2 million when the Court reduced the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fee
award from the requested $30 million to roughly $22.7 million.
McCain makes three arguments in support of his claim. First, he
argues that he drew the Court's attention to the low per capita
recovery of the class members in the instant case. Second, he
claims that he exposed Professor Miller's opinions in his
declaration as unreliable. Third, he asserts that he clarified the
size of the Equifax attorneys' fee award relative to the
settlement.
As to the first argument, McCain contends that he was the only
objector to provide a breakdown and analysis of per capita recovery
in the two most comparable data breach settlements, Anthem and
Yahoo. However, in July 2018, long before McCain filed his March
6, 2020 objection, one of the Plaintiffs' experts, Ian Ratner,
submitted a report in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Judge Koh presided over both the Anthem data
breach settlement and the Yahoo data breach settlement, so she was
aware of the comparative recovery in the two cases. However, it
was Ratner's analysis that drew the Court's attention to the
comparative per capita recovery in the two cases.
As to the second argument, McCain was the only objector to identify
contradictions in Professor Miller's opinions relative to his
academic studies. His efforts to poke holes in Professor Miller's
declaration did not increase the settlement fund or provide a
substantial benefit to the class. The Court's brief discussion of
Professor Miller's declaration in the context of a
percentage-of-recovery cross-check found the declaration unreliable
for reasons that McCain did not identify.
As to the third argument, McCain simply asserts that he clarified
that the Court awarded 20.3% of $380.5 million, not 25% of that
amount as attorneys' fees in Equifax. The Court would have learned
that information with or without McCain's objection, which he
plainly knew. Moreover, McCain failed to identify two significant
facts about the Equifax settlement on which the Court relied.
Finally, the Judge overruled all of McCain's objections, most of
which did not concern the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees at all.
Judge Koh has closely scrutinized McCain's request and concludes
that McCain did not increase the fund or substantially enhance the
benefits to the class. McCain is therefore not entitled to
attorneys' fees, the Court finds. Further, because McCain did not
increase the fund or substantially enhance the benefits to the
class, he is not entitled to an incentive award. Accordingly, the
Judge denied McCain's motion for attorneys' fees and incentive
award.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y43fobym from Leagle.com.
MEAD JOHNSON: Palmieri Sues Over Misleading Infant Formula Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Palmieri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-09591
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2020) seeks damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regards to its Enfagrow Premium Toddler Transitions, 9-18 Months,
described as Infant & Toddler Formula, Milk-based Powder with Iron,
purporting to meet, and be necessary for the nutritional needs of
children within this age range, under their "Enfagrow" brand.
According to the complaint, to make up for declining sales of
infant formulas, companies have introduced products marketed as
"transition formulas," "follow-on formulas," "weaning formulas,"
"toddler milks" and "growing-up milks" ("GUMs") (collectively,
"Transition Formulas") to children older than 12 months. These
products are practically identical to infant formula in that they
are based on milk powder with added nutrients. Transition formulas
use an infant formula nutrition panel but use a statement of
identity that often uses the words infant and toddler
interchangeably.
For instance, the Defendant's infant formula product is identified
as "Infant Formula, Milk-based Powder with Iron" ("Infant Formula
Product"). The Defendant's Transition Formula has a deceptively
similar name, "Infant & Toddler Formula, Milk-based Powder with
Iron." The name "Infant & Toddler Formula, Milk-based Powder with
Iron" is deceptive and misleading because it is confusingly similar
to the name of "Infant Formula, Milk-based Powder with Iron."
"Infant & Toddler Formula, Milk-based Powder with Iron" does not
state, in clear terms, what it is in a way that distinguishes it
from different foods such as the Infant Formula Product.
The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to -- and does -- deceive, mislead, and defraud plaintiff and
consumers. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher
prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. The
value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased and consumed was
materially less than its value as represented by defendant.
Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for them. As a
result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at
a premium price, approximately no less than $ 18.98 per 567 grams,
excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the Product if it
were represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or
State for personal consumption.
Mead Johnson & Company, LLC manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells Enfagrow Premium Toddler Transitions, 9-18 Months,
described as Infant & Toddler Formula, Milk-based Powder with Iron,
purporting to meet, and be necessary for the nutritional needs of
children within this age range, under their "Enfagrow" brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
MERITOR INC: Slavens Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Slavens, Frank Slavens, and Kevin Levy, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Meritor 401(k) Plan v. MERITOR INC., the BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF MERITOR, INC., the MERITOR, INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE, MIKE LEI, TIMOTHY HEFFRON, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
2:20-cv-13047-DML-APP (E.D. Mich., Nov. 13, 2020) is brought
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Meritor, Inc., the
Board of Directors of Meritor and its members during the Class
Period, and the Employee Benefit Plan Committee and its members
during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties.
Defined contribution retirement plans, like the Plan, confer tax
benefits on participating employees to incentivize saving for
retirement. According to the Investment Company Institute,
Americans held $7.9 trillion in all employer-based defined
contribution retirement plans as of March 31, 2020, of which $5.6
trillion was held in 401(k) plans. To safeguard Plan participants
and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty
and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries.
As of December 31, 2019, the Plan had more than $616 million in
assets, and as of December 31, 2018, the Plan had more than $506
million in assets As a large plan, the Plan has substantial
bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that are charged
against participants' investments. However, instead of leveraging
the Plan's bargaining power to benefit participants and
beneficiaries, the Defendants' chose poorly performing investments,
inappropriate, high cost mutual fund share classes, and caused the
Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for recordkeeping and
other administrative services.
According to the complaint, the Plan's assets are entrusted to the
care of Defendants, who are the Plan's fiduciaries, as that term is
defined under ERISA. To the extent that Defendants made any attempt
to reduce the Plan's expenses or to monitor and review the Plan's
investment options, Defendants employed flawed and ineffective
processes, which failed to ensure that: (1) the fees and expenses
charged to Plan participants were reasonable, and (2) that each
investment option that was offered by the Plan was prudent.
Instead, the Defendants breached the fiduciary duties to the Plan
and its participants, in violation of the ERISA, by: (1) selecting
and retaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of
virtually identical or similar investment options with lower costs
and/or better performance histories; (2) failing to select the
lowest cost share class for the funds within the Plan; and (3)
underutilizing collective trusts and separate accounts as
alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower
fees.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan constitutes a breach of
the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and cost the Plan and
its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct,
Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of the
fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence (Count One) and failure to
monitor fiduciaries (Count Two), says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan.
Meritor is a global supplier of a broad range of integrated
systems, modules and components to original equipment manufacturers
("OEMs") and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle,
transportation and industrial sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
Darryl Bressack, Esq.
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
Facsimile: (248) 971-2600
Email: dfink@finkbressack.com
dbressack@finkbressack.com
nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Mark H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bolden Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is styled as Twanna Bolden, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02281-CAB-DEB (S.D. Cal., Nov.
23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sias Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brittney Sias,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Encore Capital Group, Inc., DOES 1 through
10 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10620 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN LAW OFFICES
7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (323) 937-0400
Fax: (866) 288-9194
Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com
MINTED LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. MINTED, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09541-LGS
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020) is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendants' Website, https://www.minted.com/, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer.
MINTED, LLC, operates the Minted online retail store across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Danalgottlieb@aol.com
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Davis Files Suit in Oregon
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Multnomah County, et
al. The case is styled as Theresa Davis, Rashawd Duhart, Robin
Lundy, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Multnomah County, a political subdivision of the
state of Oregon; Michael Reese; Steven Alexander; Jeffrey Wheeler;
Kendall Clark; Jose Palomera; Amy Hay; Aaron Van Houte; Brian
Beardsley; John Does 1 - 50, Acting in concert and in their
individual capacities, Case No. 3:20-cv-02041-SB (D. Ore., Nov. 23,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Multnomah County is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of
Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Larsen, Esq.
PICKEYY DUMMIGAN LLP
American Bank Building
621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 223-7770
Fax: (503) 227-2530
Email: chris@pdm.legal
- and -
David D. Park, Esq.
ELLIOTT & PARK, PC
324 S Abernethy Street
Portland, OR 97239-8529
Phone: (503) 227-1690
Email: dave@elliott-park.com
- and -
David F. Sugerman, Esq.
DAVID F. SUGERMAN ATTORNEY, PC
707 SW Washington Street. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 228-6474
Fax: (503) 228-2556
Email: david@davidsugerman.com
- and -
Erious Johnson, Jr., Esq.
HARMON JONNSON LLC
1415 Commercial St SE
Salem, OR 97302
Phone: (503) 991-8545
Fax: (503) 622-8545
Email: ejohnson.hjllc@gmail.com
- and -
Gabriel Michael Chase, Esq.
CHASE LAW, PC
621 SW Alder St., Ste. 600
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 294-1414
Fax: (503) 294-1455
Email: gabriel@chaselawpc.net
- and -
Jane L. Moisan, Esq.
PEOPLE'S LAW PROJECT
818 S.W. 3rd Avenue #
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (971) 258-1292
Fax: (971) 258-1292
Email: peopleslawproject@gmail.com
- and -
Michelle R. Burrows, Esq.
MICHELLE R. BURROWS, PC
1333 NE Orenco Station Pkwy, Suite 525
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Phone: (503) 241-1955
Email: michelle.r.burrows@gmail.com
- and -
Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
SUGERMAN LAW OFFICE
707 SW Washington Street, Ste. 600
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 228-6474
Email: nadia@nadiadahab.com
- and -
Joseph E. Piucci, Esq.
PIUCCI LAW
900 SW 13th Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 701-0357
Fax: (503) 228-2571
Email: joe@piucci.com
N&M FOOD: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Ramirez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. N&M FOOD WHOLESALE SUPPLY INC., ELSAYED A. HALIM, AHMED
OMAR, ASHRAF MOUSA, and NASHAR DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-09557
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees
to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the
minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Ramirez was employed as a butcher, custodian, repair
worker and a delivery worker at the Food Wholesale Supply.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a food wholesale supply
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Picou Files Personal Injury Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Dequavius Picou,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and
University of West Georgia, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04697-CAP
(N.D., Ga., Nov. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from up to 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith Altman, Esq.
The Law Office of Keith Altman
33228 West 12 Mile Road, Ste 375
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Tel: (516) 456-5885
Email: kaltman@lawampmmt.com
- and -
Odis Williams, Esq.
The Law Offices of Odis Williams, PC
Building 20, Suite 300
1640 Powers Ferry Road
Marietta, GA 30067
Tel: (770) 575-4466
Fax: (877) 329-8359
Email: owilliams@odiswilliamspc.com
NATIONS RECOVERY: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE F. ESPOSITO on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONS
RECOVERY CENTER, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-02089-VLB (D. Conn.), the
Parties ask the Court for an order granting final approval of the
class action settlement preliminarily approved by this Court by
Order dated June 26, 2020.
The plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses to his attorneys. The Defendant does not join in
Plaintiff's request for award of fees.
The salient terms of the Settlement are:
a. The sum of $10,000 for the benefit of the class, who
share the sum on a pro rata basis. Any unclaimed funds or
uncashed checks shall not revert to Defendant, but shall
be paid to the class member who have cashed their checks.
b. The sum of $3,000 to the Representative Plaintiff,
Esposito.
c. Representative Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees as
approved by the Court or agreed upon by the parties
subject to Court approval, plus reasonable reimbursable
expenses.
The Defendant has also agreed to pay all processing and
administrative costs and expenses incurred in connection with the
compilation of the class list, printing, publishing and mailing of
checks to the class, receiving and compiling requests for exclusion
and objections submitted by class members, distribution of monies
to the class members, reporting to the court and all other aspects
of claims and settlement administration. All such duties have been
handled by an independent, third-party class action settlement
administrator, First Class, Inc. The services of that administrator
represented a cost to the Defendant of approximately $3,194.89.
A copy of the Parties motion for final approval of class action
settlement dated Nov. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/3pI1TTe at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class are:
Joanne S. Faulkner, Esq.
FAULKNER LAW OFFICE
123 Avon Street
New Haven, CT 06511-2422
Telephone: (203) 772-0395
E-mail: faulknerlawoffice@snet.net
- and -
E-mail: Eric L. Foster, Esq.
ERIC LINDH FOSTER LAW, LLC
48 Main Street
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
Telephone: (203) 533-4321
E-mail: efoster@lindhfoster.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew M. Schneiderman, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
53 State Street, 27th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: 617-213-7012
Facsimile: 617 848-0163
E-mail: aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com
NEW YORK: Doe Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jane Doe, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order dated October 22, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and
her minor child; and Childrens Health Defense and all others
similarly situated, et al. v. Howard Zucker, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of Health for the State of New York, et
al., Case No. 20-cv-840, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York (Syracuse).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 11,
2020, the lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act and is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes.
On October 22, 2020, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, seeking an order restraining
the implementation and enforcement of the applicable regulations.
The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe v. Zucker, Case No.
20-3915, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, November 17, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and her minor
child; Jane Boe, Sr., on behalf of herself and her minor child;
John Coe, Sr., on behalf of himself and his minor children; Jane
Coe, Sr., on behalf of herself and her minor children; John Foe,
Sr., on behalf of himself and his minor child; Jane Loe, on behalf
of herself and her medically fragile child; Jane Joe, on behalf of
herself and her medically fragile child; and Childrens Health
Defense, and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Michael H. Sussman, Esq.
MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN, ESQ.
1 Railroad Avenue, P.O. Box 1005
Goshen, NY 10924
Telephone: (845) 294-3991
Facsimile: (845) 294-1623
E-mail: sussman1@frontiernet.net
Defendants-Appellees Howard Zucker, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of Health for the State of New York; New York State
Department of Health; Three Village Central School District; Cheryl
Pedisich, acting in her official capacity as Superintendent, Three
Village Central School District; Corinne Keane, acting in her
official capacity as Principal, Paul J. Gelinas Jr. High School,
Three Village Central School District; Lansing Central School
District; Chris Pettograsso, acting in her official capacity as
Superintendent, Lansing Central School District; Christine Rebera,
acting in her official capacity as Principal, Lansing Middle
School, Lansing Central School District; Lorri Whiteman, acting in
her official capacity as Principal, Lansing Elementary School,
Lansing Central School District; Penfield Central School District;
Dr. Thomas Putman, acting in his official capacity as
Superintendent, Penfield Central School District; South Huntington
School District; David P. Bernando, Dr., acting in his official
capacity as Superintendent, South Huntington School District; BR.
David Migliorino, acting in his official capacity as Principal, St.
Anthony's High School, South Huntington School District; Ithaca
City School District; DR. Luvelle Brown, acting in his official
capacity as Superintendent, Ithaca City School District; Susan
Eschbach, acting in her official capcity as Principal, Beverly J.
Martin Elementary School, Ithaca City School District;
Coxsackie-Athens School District; Randall Squier, Superintendent,
acting in his official capacity as Superintendent, Coxsackie-Athens
School District; Freya Mercer, acting in her official capacity as
Principal, Coxsackie-Athens School District; Albany City School
District; Kaweeda G. Adams, acting in her official capacity as
Superintendent, Albany City School District; Michael Paolino,
acting in his official capacity as Principal, William S. Hackett
Middle School, Albany City School District; and all others
similarly situated; and M.D. Elizabeth Rausch-Phung, in her
official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Immunizations at the
New York State Department of Health, are represented by:
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 416-8433
Facsimile: (212) 416-8369
- and -
Gregg Tyler Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON LAWS, LLC
646 Plank Road, Suite 205
Clifton Park, NY 12065
Telephone: (518) 490-6428
E-mail: gtj@johnsonlawsllc.com
- and -
Adam I. Kleinberg, Esq.
SOKOLOFF STERN LLP
179 Westbury Avenue
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 334-4500
E-mail: akleinberg@sokoloffstern.com
- and -
James Gerard Ryan, Esq.
CULLEN AND DYKMAN LLP
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 357-3750
E-mail: jryan@cullenanddykman.com
- and -
Meishin Riccardulli, Esq.
BIEDERMANN HOENIG SEMPREVIVO PC
1 Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 218-7560
E-mail: Meishin.Riccardulli@lawbhs.com
NEW YORK: Z.Q. Files Class Action Under Disabilities Education Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the New York City
Department of Education, et al. The case is styled as Z.Q. by his
parent, G.J.; G.J. individually and on behalf of Z.Q.; J.H. by his
parent, Y.H.; Y.H., individually and on behalf of J.H.; J.A. by his
parent, D.S.; D.S., individually and on behalf of J.A.; M.S. by his
parent, R.H.; R.H., individually and on behalf of M.S.; D.V. by his
guardian, V.L.; V.L. individually and on behalf of D.V.; J.W. by
his parent, A.W.; A.W., individually and on behalf of J.W.; D.M. by
his parent, E.L.; E.L., individually and on behalf of D.M.; C.B. by
his parent, C.B.2; C.B.2, individually and on behalf of C.B.; on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. New York
City Department of Education; New York City Board of Education;
Richard Carranza, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New
York City School District; New York State Education Department; New
York State Board of Regents; Betty A. Rosa, in her official
capacity as Interim Commissioner of Education and President of the
University of the State of New York; Case No. 1:20-cv-09866
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights for the
IDEA: Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
The New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Adam Kipnees, Esq.
PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 336-2838
Fax: (212) 336-1241
Email: jkipnees@pbwt.com
NOMAD HOTEL: Jariwala Alleges Violation under ADA in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad Hotel Manager LA LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Krishna Jariwala, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nomad Hotel Manager LA LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02244-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal., Nov. 17,
2020).
Located on the vibrant corner of 7th and Olive Street in Downtown
LA, the NoMad Los Angeles continues in the spirit of the original
NoMad Hotel in New York taking residence in the historical Giannini
Building.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Wilshire Law Firm
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
NUTIVA: Cruz Files Suit under Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nutiva is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Nutiva, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09674 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 17,
2020).
Nutiva offers Extra Virgin Organic Coconut Oil, Hemp Protein, Hemp
Seed Oil and Chia Seed.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
ODYSSEY FUN WORLD: Fortillo Files Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Odyssey Fun World,
LLC. The case is styled as Vincent Fortillo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Odyssey Fun
World, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06850 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 18,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Personal Injury.
Odyssey Fun World, LLC is an Amusement center in Tinley Park,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq.
440 N. McClurg Ct. #803
Chicago, IL 60611
Tel: (818) 600-5535
Email: syed@pricelawgroup.com
OTTER PRODUCTS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Otter Products, LLC.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Otter Products, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05677 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Otter Products, LLC designs and manufactures protective solutions.
The Company produces waterproof boxes and device-specific cases for
smartphones and tablet devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
PACIFIC COAST: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Coast
Hospitality Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Pacific Coast Hospitality Group, Inc., a California corporation;
Does 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 3:20-cv-02285-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.,
Nov. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pacific Coast Hospitality, LLC (PCH) is a specialized recruiting
firm that serves top organizations within the hospitality industry,
founded and owned by Mr. Greg Knudsen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
PARADIGM MANAGEMENT: Advanced Int'l Suit Transferred to Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Advanced Interventional Pain & Diagnostics of
Western Arkansas, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Paradigm Management Services, LLC, Adva
Holdings, LLC and Encompass Specialty Network, LLC, Defendants, was
transferred from the District of California Northern with the
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-08337 to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on Nov. 17, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-02704-WFJ-CPT.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed pursuant to the Restrictions
of Use of Telephone Equipment.
Paradigm Management Services, LLC provides healthcare services. The
Company offers catastrophic, spinal cord and traumatic brain
injuries, amputations, chronic pain, and case management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Henry Bates , III, Esq.
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
- and -
Elliot Jason Conn, Esq.
Conn Law, PC
354 Pine St.
5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 417-2780
Fax: (415) 358-4941
Email: elliot@connlawpc.com
- and -
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
519 W. 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeremy Michael McLaughlin, Esq.
K&L Gates LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Tel: (415) 882-8230
Fax: (415) 882-8220
Email: jeremy.mclaughlin@klgates.com
- and -
KL Gates, LLP, Esq.
70 W. Madison
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 375-8468
Email: abe.moore@klgates.com
- and -
Molly K. McGinley, Esq.
K & L Gates, LLP
70 W Madison St Ste 3100
Chicago, IL 60602-4207
Tel: (312) 372-1121
Fax: (312) 827-8000
Email: molly.mcginley@klgates.com
PERFECT BAR: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Clark Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOWARD CLARK; MICHAEL SIMS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
PERFECT BAR, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-15042 (9th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs-Appellants' putative
consumer class action involving product-labeling claims against
Perfect Bar.
The Appellants alleged that Perfect Bar's packaging led them to
believe that the bars were healthy when in fact added sugar
rendered the bars unhealthy. They alleged that they relied on the
following deceptive claims contained on the labeling and packaging:
"20+ Superfoods," "17G Protein," and "The Original Refrigerated
Protein Bar." They also allegedly relied on two other Perfect Bar
packaging statements that referred to the creator of the Perfect
Bar as a "health food pioneer."
The Ninth Circuit finds that the Appellants adequately met the
standing requirements to pursue claims under the California's
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act. Their state law claims predicated on the theory that
the bars were mislabeled are preempted by the Nutritional Labeling
and Education Act ("NLEA"), the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, and
accompanying regulations. The NLEA preempts all state law claims
that directly or indirectly establish any requirement for the
labeling of food that is not identical to the federal
requirements.
To the extent the Appellants' claims advance the notion that
Perfect Bar made an improper health claim due to added sugar levels
in the bar, those claims are not viable. However, the NLEA and its
applicable regulations are silent on whether sugar levels preclude
a product from making health claims.
In Hawkins v. Kroger Co., the Court held that under the NLEA, no
state may directly or indirectly establish any requirement for the
labeling of food that is not identical to the federal requirements.
Allowing a claim of misbranding under California law based on
misleading sugar level content would "indirectly establish" a sugar
labeling requirement "that is not identical to the federal
requirements," a result foreclosed by the Court's precedent.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Aug. 11, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5pxyu8b from Leagle.com.
POSH PEANUT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Posh Peanut, Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Posh Peanut, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-09765 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Posh Peanut offers baby outfits for girls and boys and offers baby
swaddles, headbands, dresses, rompers, onesie's, and more.[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
PRESSLER FELT: Weber Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRESSLER, FELT &
WARSHAW, L.L.P., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Weber,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PRESSLER, FELT & WARSHAW, L.L.P.; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.;
and John Does 1-25; Case No. 3:20-cv-17279 (D.N.J.., Nov. 26,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Pressler, Felt, & Warshaw LLP is a New Jersey based debt collection
law firm that operates in multiple states, including New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
QUAPAW HOUSE: Bid to Certify Class in Schatz Suit Declared Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schatz v. Quapaw House,
Inc. et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05066 (W.D. Ark., Filed Apr. 16,
2020), the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks entered an order finding as
moot the Motion to Certify Class.
Judge Brooks also mooted the Motion for Hearing in light of the
Plaintiff's amended, superseding complaint.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
regarding denial of overtime compensation.
Quapaw House, Inc., is an accredited substance-abuse rehabilitation
and behavioral health facility.[CC]
RADIUS GLOBAL: Campbell Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Angela Campbell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions LLC
f/k/a Northland Group, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, Case
No. not yet assigned, was removed from the Pierce County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on Nov. 19, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-06134 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Radius Global Solutions is a provider of account recovery and debt
collection, customer relationship management and healthcare revenue
cycle management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert W Mitchell, Esq.
1020 N Washington Street
Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: (412) 338-1185
Fax: (509) 327-2224
Email: bobmitchellaw@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen G Skinner, Esq.
ANDREWS SKINNER
645 Elliott Avenue W, Ste. 350
Seattle, WA 98119-3911
Phone: (206) 223-9248
Email: stephen.skinner@andrews-skinner.com
REAL TIME: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jeanette Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc.; John
and Jane Does 1-10; Case No. 158383/2020, was removed from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Nov.
20, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-09803 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Real Time Resolutions is a full-service loan servicing and recovery
company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and
other consumer loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Katherine Anne Skeele, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LP (NY)
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 513-3200
Fax: (212) 385-9010
Email: katherine.skeele@hklaw.com
ROSSCO CRANE: Powers FLSA Suit Seeks to Conditional Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN POWERS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ROSSCO CRANE &
RIGGING, INC., ROSS KOVACH and JERE KOVACH, Case No.
1:20-cv-00101-DMT-CRH (DND), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"all salaried Crane Operators and Field Supervisors in the
past three years";
2. directing the Defendants to provide the names, current
and/or last known mailing addresses and email addresses of
all potential collective members no later than 7 days
after the date of the entry of the Order granting this
Motion;
3. approving the Notice and Consent to Join forms to be sent
to all collective members, and granting leave to send the
reminder email, beginning 30 days after the opt-in period
begins, to potential plaintiffs who have not responded to
the Notice;
4. granting Plaintiff's counsel a period of 90 days during
which to distribute the Notice and to file opt-in
plaintiffs' Consent forms with this Court; and
5. approving the Plaintiff's proposed language for electronic
distribution of Notice.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Rossco Crane provides service to the Oil & Gas exploration
industry, including full rig moves, completions, and production
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kHnIyl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Seattle City Files Statement of Good Cause
--------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for the Plaintiff in the case captioned Seattle City
Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all similarly
situated stockholders and derivatively on behalf of Santander
Consumer USA Holdings Inc. v. Santander Holdings USA, Inc., Mahesh
Aditya, Homaira Akbari, Juan Carlos Alvarez, Stephen A. Ferriss,
Victor Hill, Edith E. Holiday, Javier Maldonado, Robert J.
Mccarthy, William F. Muir, and William Rainer, Defendants, - and
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
2020-0977 filed a Statement of Good Cause with the Court of
Chancery of the State of
Delaware on November 13, 2020.
The Statement held that it is the opinion of counsel that this
action should not be assigned to a Master in the first instance
because the said action involves complex issues of Delaware
corporate law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
Wilmington, DE 19801
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Mejico Balks at Subscriptions' Automatic Renewal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Mejico, an individual, on behalf of others similarly
situated who are affected v. SHUTTERSTOCK, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-0237
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2020) is brought against the Defendants for
their failure to obtain the Plaintiff's "affirmative consent" to
the charge, which requires a signature or "opt-in" box that is not
part of the larger subscription transaction as required by Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code.
Earlier this year, the Plaintiff accepted a "free" trial online
Bigstock photo and video access service/subscription and related
products from Shutterstock, Inc.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made and continues to
make offers of "free" services and products that violate California
law in at least three ways. Specifically, Defendant: (a) fails to
present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service
offer terms, including its full cancellation policy, in a clear and
conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for
consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing
agreement was fulfilled in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; (b)
charges consumer credit or debit cards without first obtaining
"affirmative consent" to automatically renewing charges in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; and (c) fails to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding
how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
consumer in violation of the state law.
As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift pursuant to Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code and must be refunded, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is completely blind and accepted the Defendant's
offer of a "free" trial online Bigstock photo and video access
service/subscription and related products and is a consumer.
The Defendant operates a Website which markets online Bigstock
photo and video access services/subscriptions and related
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SIMON AUERBACER: Kay Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Kay, Ashely Cleator, Moin Mahbub, Rakin Subhan, and James
Hicks, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
SIMON AUERBACER, RAM DESTINATIONS MIAMI LLC and RAM CATERERS OF OLD
WESTBURY LLC, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-05541
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, to recover from
Defendants unpaid wages for overtime work performed, unpaid spread
of hours wages for each day the Plaintiffs worked ten or more
hours, damages for failure to furnish Plaintiffs a notice and
acknowledgment at the time of hiring, unlawful retention of tips,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, interest, and all costs and
disbursements associated with the action.
While the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours a week, the
Defendants willfully failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the overtime hours worked. Also, the Plaintiffs
typically worked more than 10 hours each day during the week, yet
Defendants willfully failed to pay them spread of hours wages. The
Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient records of
those hours the Plaintiffs worked and those wages paid to them. The
Defendants knew that nonpayment of overtime would economically
injure Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs and members
of the Class, and violated state and federal laws, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
The Defendant is a caterer that advertises itself as having an
"ability to support any event from exquisite weddings, meaningful
Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, momentous Brises, and distinctive corporate
events" that is "renowned for designing extraordinary occasions
with stellar decor, innovative culinary artistry, and unparalleled
service".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marcos Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
Hempstead, NY 11550
Telephone: (516) 280-4600
Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
SIMPLY SELF: Freeman Alleges Workplace Harassment and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LANEECIA S. FREEMAN, individually and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLY SELF STORAGE; VINCENT WARD
individually; ANDREE CONSTANCE individually and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND
6-10, Defendants, Case No. MER-L-002145-20 (N.J. Super., Mercer
Cty., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for harassment and constructive discharge in violation of the New
Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
The Plaintiff alleges that she was harassed and treated in a
hostile, intimidating and abusive manner by Defendant Constance
following her disclosure of Defendant Constance's theft of items in
the workplace. Further, the Plaintiff accused the Defendants of
direct and purposeful retaliation after she was transferred to a
different location to be away from Defendant Constance. The
Plaintiff believes that it should have been Defendant Constance
that was moved because she was responsible for the illegal
conduct.
As a result of the Plaintiff's transfer away from Defendant
Constance, her work hours were so substantially reduced that the
job became untenable to hold.
Simply Self Storage is a privately owned self-storage company based
in Orlando, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 727-9700
SKOOP LLC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------
Skoop, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Skoop, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09671 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
17, 2020).
Skoop, LLC offers plant-based nutrition made super simple for
all.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SKYROCKET MEDIA: Schultz Files TCPA Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skyrocket Media, LLC.
The case is styled as Kelly Schultz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Skyrocket Media, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-02370-JRT-TNL (D.
Minn., Nov. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
SkyRocket Media is a multi-faceted internet property conglomerate
nestled within the silicon slopes of Pleasant Grove, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan D. Peterson, Esq.
PETERSON LEGAL, PLLC
5201 Eden Avenue, Suite 300
Edina, MN 55436
Phone: (612) 367-6568
Email: ryan@peterson.legal
SMITH+NOBLE HOME: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith+Noble Home,
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Smith+Noble Home, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05678 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Smith+Noble offers consumers custom perfect-fit blinds, shutters,
window shades, and panels. Products are sold through catalogs or
online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
SOUTH BAY ENERGY: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against South Bay Energy
Corp. The case is styled as Andrew Perrong, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated,
plaintiff v. South Bay Energy corp., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-05781-JDW (E.D. Pa, Nov. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.
South Bay Energy corp. is an Energy supplier in Hauppauge, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Clinton Kelley, Esq.
304 ROSS ST 7TH FL
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: (412) 454-5599
Email: gckesq@gmail.com
SOUTHERN THERAPY: Bailey and Luft Seek Collective Status
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BAILEY and LANA
LUFT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHERN THERAPY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02445-SDG (N.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally
certifying this case as a collective action on behalf of:
"all persons employed as physical therapists or physical
therapy assistants who were not paid their statutorily
required overtime rate of pay for all hours worked by
Southern Therapy Services, Inc. during the three-year period
prior to the filing of this suit."
Plaintiffs also seek approval of notice to Potential Class
Members.
The Plaintiff Bailey was employed by the Defendant as a physical
therapist from on November 6, 2013 through June 4, 2020. The
Plaintiff Luft was employed by the Defendant as a physical therapy
assistant from May 29, 2006 through July 3, 2019. The Defendant
even concedes that there are at minimum nine other physical
therapists and/or physical therapy assistants who worked with
Plaintiffs, three of whom would possibly join this case if they
were notified and given the chance according to
Plaintiff Luft.
While working for the Defendant, the Plaintiffs often worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Typically, the Plaintiffs worked
for 50 to 60 hours per week. However, Defendant failed to properly
compensate Plaintiffs for overtime hours worked in accordance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act, says the complaint.
Southern Therapy operates as a therapy and balance center providing
telehealth, occupational therapy, physical therapy, sports
medicine, balance, and orthopedic rehabilitation services to its
patients.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and
notice to potential class members dated Nov. 10, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fdiZmR at no extra
charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiffs and Class Members are:
James M. Loren, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A.
1776 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 224
Plantation, FL 33322
Telephone: (954) 585-4878
Facsimile: (954) 585-4886
E-Mail: jloren@goldbergloren.com
SPEARMINT VENTURES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spearmint Ventures
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Spearmint Ventures LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09764 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Spearmint Ventures LLC is the parent company of spearmintbaby.com,
spearmintdecor.com, spearmintkitchen.com, spearmintwedding.com and
spearmintlove.com. Started in 2009, spearmintbaby.com has grown
into one of the leading blogs dedicated to children's decor and
fashion inspiration for moms throughout the world.[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
SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: Quiruz Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW QUIRUZ, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated and as a representative
of other aggrieved employees, v. SPECIALTY COMMODITIES, INC. and
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-cv-03300-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
class and collective action settlement;
2. granting the Plaintiff's requests for attorneys' fees,
costs, and an incentive award. The Plaintiff is awarded
attorneys' fees in the amount of $460,000, costs in the
amount of $15,000, and an incentive award in the amount of
$10,000;
3. approving the Settlement Administrator's costs in an
amount not to exceed $65,000;
4. directing the Clerk to close the file pursuant to this
order and the Order and Final Judgment issued
simultaneously; and
5. directing the parties, within 21 days after the
distribution of the settlement funds and payment of
attorneys' fees, or within 6 months after entry of the
Order and Final Judgment, whichever is earlier, to file a
Post-Distribution Accounting in accordance with this
District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements.
The Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Moreover, the Settlement will promote Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA's) public policy goals, which include "augmenting
the state's enforcement capabilities, encouraging compliance with
Labor Code provisions, and deterring noncompliance." The
Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim reached conduct not directly
addressed by the state, and resulted in the state's recovery of
$30,000 in civil penalties. Imposition of those penalties will
encourage future compliance with the California Labor Code.
A copy of the Court's Order granting motion for final approval of
class and collective action settlement dated Nov. 9, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kHHeL1 at no
extra charge.[CC]
STAMPS.COM INC: Indiana Retirement System's Suit Wins Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matt Karinski v.
Stamps.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01828-MWF-SK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order
granting Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System's motion
for class certification.
The Court said, "The proposed Class satisfies all requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for
certification. Rule 23(g) supports appointment of Robbin Geller as
Class Counsel. Defendants cobbled together technical arguments
based on nonbinding case law and their expert's conclusions. The
Court approached the Motion in that light and addressed these
arguments. It is important, however, to step back from these
arguments, as Plaintiff's counsel did at the hearing. The
Plaintiff's counsel correctly argued that, given the
interrelationship of Stamps and the United States Postal Service
(USPS), common sense dictates that this Motion must be granted."
Defendants Stamps.com, Inc., Kenneth McBride, Kyle Huebner, and
Jeff Carberry filed an opposition on August 31, 2020. The Lead
Plaintiff filed a reply on October 15, 2020.
Matt Karinski commenced this action on March 13, 2019. On June 5,
2019, the Court appointed Indiana Public Retirement System as Lead
Plaintiff. On August 5, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Complaint, bringing a securities fraud class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Stamps.com
between May 3, 2017, and May 8, 2019, and were harmed thereby. The
Complaint alleges Stamps exploited its contractual relationships
with the USPS by providing customers unauthorized-discounted USPS
shipping under what was known as the "reseller program." Although
Stamps publicly represented throughout the Class Period that its
strong operating performance was the result of the Company's
healthy partnership with the USPS, the Complaint alleges that a
majority of Stamps' reported revenue and earnings growth during the
Class Period was the product of undisclosed, improper, and
unsustainable business practices."
A copy of the Court's Order granting motion for class certification
dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3lLJyC2 at no extra charge.[CC]
STERICYCLE INC: Poston Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC POSTON and KENNETH BLANCHETT, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STERICYCLE INC. and
SHRED-IT USA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00655 (W.D.N.C.,
November 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
their failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated workers proper overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and for
wrongful termination after they asked about workplace safety
violations pursuant to the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment
Discrimination Act.
Mr. Poston and Mr. Blanchett worked for the Defendants as customer
service representatives/drivers, whose primary duties included
driving to customer locations and picking up documents and other
items for disposal, from April 15, 2019 and January 7, 2019,
respectively.
Stericycle Inc. is a compliance company that specializes in
collecting and disposing regulated substances, with its principal
place of business located in Bannockburn, Illinois.
Shred-It USA LLC is a document destruction provider headquartered
at 11311 Cornell Park Drive, Suite 125 in Blue Ash, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte Smith, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com
SYNCREON NORTH: Class Status Bid in Scott Case Terminated as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott, et al., v. Syncreon
North America, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-00164 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 11,
2019), the Hon. Judge Staci M. Yandle entered an order terminating
as moot the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and
Motion to Certify Class in light of the parties' motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
Syncreon provides transportation services. The Company logistics,
storage, handling, and other services.[CC]
TAURUS HOLDINGS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taurus Holdings, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Taurus Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09677 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 17, 2020).
Taurus Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, manufactures small arms such as gun
selector, pistols, revolvers, carbines, and other related
accessories. Taurus Holdings serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Henry Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN HENRY and CURT UYEMURA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; R&B SALES & MARKETING INC.; and DOES ONE
through TEN, inclusive, Case No. RG20074886, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on November 25, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-08329 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
California Unfair Competition Law for failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statement, failure to provide meal periods, failure
to pay all wages due upon termination, and unfair business
practices.
Techtronic Industries North America, Inc. is a manufacturer of
power tools and products based in Anderson, South Carolina.
R&B Sales & Marketing Inc. is a sales promotion services company
based in Anderson, South Carolina. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paula M. Weber, Esq.
Nida Vidutis, Esq.
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5998
Telephone: (415) 983-1000
Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
E-mail: paula.weber@pillsburylaw.com
nida.vidutis@pillsburylaw.com
- and –
Kimberly Y. Higgins, Esq.
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
Telephone: (213) 488-7100
Facsimile: (213) 629-1033
E-mail: kimberly.higgins@pillsburylaw.com
THINX INC: Kanan Sues Over Underwear Products' Deceptive Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Destini Kanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THINX INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-10341 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12,
2020) is brought on behalf of consumers who purchased Defendant's
Thinx Period Proof Cotton Brief, which are used for personal
hygiene purposes, who accordingly suffered injuries caused by the
false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices of
the unlawful sales and marketing of the Products by the Defendant.
Consumers, including the Plaintiff, willingly pay a premium for
this personal hygiene product compared to cheaper disposable
alternatives such as tampons. This is because consumers, including
the Plaintiff, would like a safer and more comfortable approach to
feminine hygiene care compared to more traditional feminine hygiene
products. Thinx Underwear are washable, reusable underwear designed
to replace pads and tampons, or to be worn with tampons and
menstrual cups for extra protection. Thinx uses "signature,
innovative technology" to absorb menstrual flow, wick moisture,
control odors, and prevent leaks.
From its inception, the Defendant has used a candid, personal
approach to connect with its customers. As part of its first grass
roots fundraising campaign in 2013, Thinx, Inc.'s founders created
a video pitch which featured the three women frankly discussing
their experiences in facing stigma related to menstruation. The
Defendant has also employed a provocative approach to its
advertising, with the goal of removing taboos regarding
menstruation and feminine hygiene products.
According to the complaint, at the time of all the Plaintiff's
purchase, the Plaintiff relied on the Defendant's factual
representations about the safety of the Thinx Underwear, including
those representations on the product label. The representations all
indicate that that the Thinx Underwear were safe to use for normal
use. When the Plaintiff learned that the Defendant mislabeled its
products, she stopped purchasing the Thinx Underwear.
The Plaintiff did not receive the benefit of her bargain when she
purchased the Thinx Underwear products that included ingredients
that did not conform to the packaging representations and to the
warranties made by the Defendant. Had she been aware of the
misrepresentations, she would have either not purchased the Thinx
Underwear or paid substantially less for it, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Thinx Period Proof Cotton
Brief, which are used for personal hygiene purposes.
The Defendant designs, formulates, manufactures, markets,
advertises, distributes, and sells the Thinx Underwear to consumers
throughout the United States, including in the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
Email: Dan@whitfieldbryson.com
Erin@whitfieldbryson.com
Hunter@whitfieldbryson.com
TOM BIHN INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tom Bihn, Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tom Bihn, Inc., A Social Purpose
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-09760 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tom Bihn Inc. is an American baggage manufacturer, with products
ranging from backpacks to travel accessories.[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
TOPO DESIGNS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Topo Designs, LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Topo Designs, LLC, A Social Purpose
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-09759 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Topo Designs is a backpack, bag, apparel and accessories company
based in Denver, Colorado.[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
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Joest Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS,
INC. The case is styled as Timothy Joest, on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03040-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and
management services. The Company focuses on commercial, education,
financial, government, healthcare, and other industries in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
120 S. 6th Street, Suite 2050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (952) 225-5333
Fax: (800) 635-6425
Email: tony@kazlg.com
- and -
Richard John Shea, Jr., Esq.
Thomas E. Irons, Esq.
SAWIN & SHEA, LLC
6100 North Keystone Ave., Suite 620
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Phone: (317) 255-2600
Fax: (317) 255-2905
Email: rshea@sawinlaw.com
tirons@sawinlaw.com
TSC LLC: Harris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TSC, LLC. The case is
styled as Lawrence Harris, on behalf of all others similarly
situated and aggrieved v. TSC, LLC; VIRGIN GALACTIC HOLDINGS, INC A
DELAWARE CORPORATION; VIRGIN GALACTIC, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY; TALENTSCALE, INC. A NEVADA CORPORATION; Case No.
BCV-20-102744 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Nov. 23, 2020).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited".
TSC, LLC operates as an aerospace company. The Company manufactures
guided missiles and space vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
TULSA COUNTY, OK: Feltz Files Class Action
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tulsa County. The
case is styled as Richard Feltz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tulsa County, Case No.
5:20-mc-00012-SLP (W.D. Okla., Nov. 23, 2020).
Tulsa County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hayley Horowitz, Esq.
STILL SHE RISES
367 E 36th Street North
Tulsa, OK 74106
The Defendant is represented by:
Stefanie E Lawson, Esq.
Attorney General's Ofc-NE 21STREET-OKC
313 NE 21st St
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Phone: (405) 521-4274
Fax: (405) 521-4518
Email: stefanie.lawson@oag.ok.gov
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE: Handorf Suit Transferred to California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mary Handorf, on behalf of herslef and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Specialty Insurance
Company, Defendant, was transferred from Iowa Southern with the
assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00322 to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Nov. 17, 2020, and assigned Case
No. 4:20-cv-08072-YGR.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.
United Specialty Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance
products and solutions, as well as reinsurance and
investments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob W. Nelson, Esq.
SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER & BERGMAN PLC
115 THIRD STREET SE
SUITE 1200
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52401-1266
Tel: (319) 366-7641
Fax: (319) 366-1917
Email: jnelson@spmblaw.com
- and -
Benjamin C. Wickert, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 DUNLAVY STREET
HOUSTON, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: bwickert@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com
UNITED ST ATES: Davis Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Offenders
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIQUE DAVIS, et al.,
v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-02897-APM (D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class of:
"all District of Columbia code offenders on parole or
supervised release who have not received a local revocation
hearing within 65 days of having been retaken on a warrant
issued by the United States Parole Commission."
The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible
for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole
releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its
jurisdiction. It is part of the United States Department of
Justice.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38YLNhT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Marcus, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
633 Indiana Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: 202 824-2524
Facsimile: 202 824-2525
E-mail: smarcus@pdsdc.org
UNITED STATES: Center for Leadership Files v. HUD Filed in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The case is styled as
Center For Leadership And Justice, Trinity Claudio, Yulissa
Espinal, Marina Ilarraza, Ashley Matos, Mirna Medina, Milagros
Ortiz, Maritza Rosario and Netzabilie Torres, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson, in
his official capacity as Secretary of United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Housing Authority of the City of
Hartford, The City of Hartford d/b/a The City of Hartford Housing
Authority and Imagineers, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01728
(D. Conn., Nov. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Accommodations filed pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is a
Cabinet department in the executive branch of the United States
federal government.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter M. Haberlandt, Esq.
Open Communities Alliance
75 Charter Oak Ave
Suite 1-200
Hartford, CT 06106
Tel: (860) 833-4412
Email: phaberlandt@ctoca.org
UNIVERSAL SCRAP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cespedes Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
IAN CESPEDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL SCRAP MOTORS INC.; UNIVERSAL
HAULING SERVICES LLC; and ANGEL PENA BALMACEDA, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-24772 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2020) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Cespedes was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Universal Scrap Motors Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Oliva Files Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of San
Francisco. The case is styled as Joseph Oliva, individually and on
bahalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
University of San Francisco, Defendant, Case No. CGC20587821 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 18, 2020).
The type of the lawsuit is stated as Contract/Warranty.
The University of San Francisco is a private Jesuit university in
San Francisco, California. The school's main campus is located on a
55-acre setting between the Golden Gate Bridge and Golden Gate
Park. The main campus is nicknamed "The Hilltop", and is split into
two sections.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: 925-300-4455
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
UPS GROUND: Post Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UPS Ground Freight,
Inc. The case is styled as Priscilla Post, on behalf of herself and
all similarly-situated employees v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., a
Virginia Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0009704 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 19, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment".
UPS Ground Freight Inc. provides trucking transportation services.
The Company offers intermodal, contract carriage, less than
truckloading, freight management, and distribution services.[BN]
VBR BREWING: Faces Reynolds Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
SARA REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VBR BREWING CORPORATION D/B/A RED BEAR
BREWING CO, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03397 (D.D.C., November 23,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision
Act, and the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Payment Collection
Law including failure to pay tipped wages, failure to pay minimum
wages, and retaliation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender at the
Red Bear Brewing Co. restaurant and bar from March of 2019.
VBR Brewing Corporation, d/b/a Red Bear Brewing Co., is a
restaurant operator and owner, with its principal place of business
in Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Barrett Kelly, Esq.
ALAN LESCHT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1825 K Street NW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 463-6036
Facsimile: (202) 463-6067
E-mail: barrett.kelly@leschtlaw.com
VF JEANSWEAR: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VF Jeanswear, LP. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. VF Jeanswear, LP, Case No.
2:20-cv-05708 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
VF Jeanswear LP manufactures apparels. The Company offers
jeanswear, sportswear, contemporary, and other apparel
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
VOSS USA INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------
Voss USA, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Voss USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09679
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 17, 2020).
Voss USA, Inc. provides flavored water. The Company offers lemon,
cucumber, and tangerine flavored bottled water.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
WELLS FARGO: Faces Wood Suit Over 6% Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Wood, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, C. ALLEN PARKER, TIMOTHY J.
SLOAN and JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY, Case No. 3:20-cv-07997 (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 13, 2020) is brought on behalf of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wells Fargo securities between October 13, 2017
and October 13, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against
Wells Fargo and certain of the Company's current and former senior
executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, due to materially false and
misleading statements made, which resulted the decline of the price
of stock.
The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo had
systematically failed to follow appropriate underwriting standards
and due diligence guidelines in issuing billions of dollars' worth
of commercial loans, including by inflating the net income and
future expected cash flows of its commercial clients to justify
issuing excessive loan amounts; (ii) a materially higher proportion
of Wells Fargo's commercial loan customers were of poor credit
quality and/or at a substantially higher risk of default than
disclosed to investors; (iii) Wells Fargo had failed to timely
write down commercial loans, collateralized loan obligations
("CLOs") and commercial mortgage backed securities ("CMBS") on its
books that had suffered impairments; (iv) Wells Fargo had
materially understated the reserves needed for expected credit
losses in its commercial portfolios; (v) Wells Fargo had
systematically misrepresented the credit quality and likelihood of
default of the loans it packaged and securitized into CLOs and
CMBS, including by artificially inflating the net income and
expected cash flows of its commercial clients in loan and
securitization documentation; (vi) the CLO and CMBS-related loans
issued and investment securities held by Wells Fargo were of lower
credit quality and worth far less than represented to investors;
(vii) as a result of (i)-(vi) above, Wells Fargo's Class Period
statements regarding the credit quality of its commercial loans,
its underwriting and due diligence practices, and the value of its
CLO and CMBS books were materially false and misleading; and (viii)
as a result of all the foregoing, Wells Fargo was exposed to severe
undisclosed risks of financial, reputational and legal harm, in
particular in the event of significant and sustained stress in the
commercial credit markets.
On April 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a press release providing its
results for the first quarter of 2020. The release revealed a
stunning deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio,
particularly with respect to its commercial loans. On this news,
Wells Fargo's stock price fell 14% over the following three trading
sessions, closing at $26.89 per share on April 16, 2020. Then, on
May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed its quarterly report for the first
quarter with the SEC, which stated that the fair value of the
Company's CLO investments held-for sale had fallen to $26.9 billion
by the quarter's end, a 9% decline from the end of the quarter and
year ended December 31, 2019 ("FY19"), and that Wells Fargo had
suffered $1.7 billion in unrealized losses on its CLO investments
during the quarter. On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell
another 6% over two trading days to close at $25.61 per share on
May 6, 2020.
Then, on June 10, 2020, Wells Fargo's Chief Financial Officer
("CFO") John Shrewsberry presented at the Morgan Stanley Virtual US
Financials Conference. During the conference, Shrewsberry revealed
that Wells Fargo's second quarter reserve build would be even
"bigger than the first quarter" as a result of continued
deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio. On this news,
Wells Fargo's stock price fell 18% over two trading days to close
at $26.79 per share on June 11, 2020. On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo
issued a release providing its results for the second quarter of
2020. The release stated that Wells Fargo had suffered a $2.4
billion loss during the quarter, or ($0.66) per share, largely as a
result of deterioration in its commercial credit portfolio. On this
news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell another 5% to close at $24.25
per share on July 14, 2020.
Finally, on October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a release
providing its results for the third quarter of 2020. The release
stated that Wells Fargo had recognized another provision expense of
$769 million and that non-accrual loans had increased $2.5 billion,
or 45%, to $8 billion during the quarter. On this news, Wells
Fargo's stock price fell another 6% to close at $23.25 per share on
October 14, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the decline in the price of Wells Fargo common
shares, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo
securities during the Class Period.
Wells Fargo is a global financial services company headquartered in
San Francisco, California. The Company provides banking, investment
and mortgage products and services, as well as other consumer and
commercial financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP: Brown Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Oscar Brown, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Western Digital
Corporation, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York with the assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-04624 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Nov. 17, 2020, and assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-08102-DMR.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed over Diversity-Fraud.
Western Digital Corporation is an American computer hard disk drive
manufacturer and data storage company. It designs, manufactures and
sells data technology products, including storage devices, data
center systems and cloud storage services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec Mitchell Leslie, Esq.
Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Max Stuart Roberts, Esq.
Bursor and Fisher, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7408
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Bursor Fisher
888 7th Ave, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10106
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tonia Maria Ouellette Klausner, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati( 1301 Ave. of the Americas)
1301 Avenue of The Americas
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 999-5800
Fax: (212) 999-5899
Email: tklausner@wsgr.com
- and -
Eric Kizirian, Esq.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 250-1800
Email: eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Joshua S. Hodas, Esq.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
633 W 5th St, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 680-5037
Fax: (213) 250-7900
Email: josh.hodas@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Peter T. Shapiro, Esq.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (Water St)
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10005
Tel: (212) 232-1322
Fax: (212) 232-1399
Email: Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com
WHITING OIL: Hystad Ceynar Files Suit in North Dakota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whiting Oil & Gas
Corp. The case is styled as Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC, on behalf
of itself and a class of similarly situated persons v. Whiting Oil
& Gas Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-00216-CRH (D.N.D., Nov. 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as filed for Breach of Contract.
Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation operates as an oil and gas company.
The Company offers exploration, development, and production of
crude oil, natural gas, and liquids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
Taylor Foye, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE A. BARTON
7227 Metcalf Avenue, Suite 301
Overland Park, KS 66204
Phone: (913) 563-6253
Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com
stacy@georgebartonlaw.com
taylor@georgebartonlaw.com
- and -
Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
VOGEL LAW FIRM (Fargo)
218 NP Avenue
PO Box 1389
Fargo, ND 58107-1389
Phone: (701) 237-6983
jswanson@vogellaw.com
- and -
Robert James Pathroff, Esq.
VOGEL LAW FIRM (Bismarck)
PO Box 2097
200 N. 3rd St., Ste. 201
Bismarck, ND 58502-2097
Phone: (701) 258-7899
Fax: (701) 258-9705
Email: rpathroff@vogellaw.com
WW INTERNATIONAL: Morrell Balks at Subscriptions' Automatic Renewal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Morrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09912
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020) is brought against the Defendant for
engaging in an illegal "automatic renewal" scheme with respect to
its subscription plans for WW-branded products and services that
are available exclusively to consumers who enroll in one of
Defendant's auto renewal membership programs.
According to the complaint, relevant to the Plaintiff's
allegations, when consumers sign up for the WW Subscriptions
through the Defendant's Website at http://weightwatchers.comand/or
its mobile application, the Defendant actually enrolls consumers in
a program that automatically renews customers' WW Subscriptions
from month-to-month or year-to-year and results in monthly or
annual charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third
party payment account (collectively, "Payment Method"). In doing
so, the Defendant's WW Website and App fail to provide the
requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be made to
California consumers under California's Automatic Renewal Law
(ARL).
Consumers can sign up for one of Defendant's membership programs
through the WW Website and/or the WW App. To do so, customers
provide the Defendant with their billing information and Defendant
then automatically charges its customers' Payment Method as
payments are due, typically on a monthly basis. The Defendant is
able to unilaterally charge its customers renewal fees without
their consent, as it is in possession of its customers' Payment
Information. Thus, the Defendant has made the deliberate decision
to bilk the Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers on a
monthly basis, relying on consumer confusion and inertia to retain
customers, combat consumer churn, and bolster its revenues.
Specifically, the Defendant systematically violates the ARL by: (i)
failing to present the automatic renewal offer terms in a clear and
conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for
consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing
agreement is fulfilled; (ii) charging consumers' Payment Method
without first obtaining their affirmative consent to the agreement
containing the automatic renewal offer terms, and (iii) failing to
provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal offer
terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel
in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer, says
the complaint.
Plaintiff Mr. Morrell purchased a three-month "Digital" Weight
Watchers membership4 directly from Defendant's mobile application
while in California.
The Defendant is an international company that offers various
products and services to assist in healthy habits, including weight
loss and maintenance, fitness, and mindset such as the Weight
Watchers comprehensive diet program.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.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 ***