/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210423.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 23, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 76
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Fukuda Alleges
3M COMPANY: Ford Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Baltimore Antitrust Suit Dismissal Voided
ALL METRO HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cantave Alleges
ALL MY SONS: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Grogan Labor Suit
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Montalvo Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to W.D.
ALL-WEATHER SEAL: Whaley Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
ALLIANCE COAL: Underpays Coal Miners, Rettig et al. Suit Allege
ALLSTATE FIRE: Smith Insurance Suit Removed to District of Nevada
ALLY FINANCIAL: Clapp Class Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Dechirico Antitrust Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Fox Antitrust Suit Moved From D. Minn. to S.D. Fla.
AMAZON.COM: Diaz Labor Suit Moved from N.D. Calif. to Washington
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Hooks Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
APPLE INC: Larsen Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to N.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: McCloskey Class Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to N.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: Payton Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Ga. to N.D. Cal.
ATLAS TUBE: Jones Sues Over Improper OT Wages and Discrimination
ATS INC: Minnesota Court Allows Arbitration in Butler Class Suit
AUTOASSURE LLC: Kuhn Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BACK TO THE ROOTS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Metals, Suit Says
BGIS GLOBAL: Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
BQ EXPRESS: Faces Austin Employment Suit in California State Ct.
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Court Dismisses Conversion Claim in Omori Suit
BRYAN COWDERY: McElwee Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA
CALIBER HOLDINGS: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
CALIFORNIA EXOTIC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE: Faces Anwar Fraud Suit Over BS-MD Programs
CBS TV: Filing of Opt-in Notices Under Seal in Harapeti Suit Denied
CHAE INC: Appeals Court Flips Ruling on Atty. Fees in Kayshel Suit
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Walsh Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Due to COVID-19
CHARLES IND: Jenkins Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to C.D. Illinois
CHEVRON USA: Schnelle Bid for Conditional Certification Tossed
COLLECTO INC: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Hopkins FDCPA Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Retirement System Sues Over 33% Drop of Stock Price
CREDIT UNION: Faces Baylor-Baker Over Overdraft Fees in New Jersey
CRYSTAL ROOM: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Juca Suit Claims
CUMBERLAND FARMS: Pincus et al. Sue Over Non-Compliance of FACTA
DANIELLA'S ALF: Perez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA
DAVITA INC: Settlement in POAB Fund Securities Suit Has Final Nod
DESIGNED METAL: Guevara Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
DIAMONDBACK E&P: Foundation Sues Over Underpayment of Gas Royalties
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Marhefka Files Class Suit Over Data Breach
DISCOUNT DEALS: Faces Guzman Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
EAGLE FOODS: Remand of Gates Suit to Lake County Cir. Ct. Denied
EEBI TRANS: Monterroza Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
EMPOWER FEDERAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Wellington Class Suit
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Dimercurio Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Class
EVENT EFFECTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Suit Alleges
EVOL NUTRITION: Sleep Walker Contains Unsafe Phenibut, Suit Says
EXPEDIA INC: Court Enters Final Judgment Closing Buckeye Class Suit
FAMOUS PIZZA: Zepeda Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
FCA US: Dantzler Suit Removed From State Ct. to D. New Jersey
FIRST CONNECTICUT: Karp Bid Certify Class Junked as Moot
FIRST TRANSIT: Woods et al. Seek Bus Drivers' Unpaid OT Wages
FLAGSTAR BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Garcia Suit Says
FLAGSTAR BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Angus Suit Alleges
FLOWERS FOODS: Richard Bid for Class Certification Nixed
FOLSOM, CA: Faces Malmquist Suit in California State Court
FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Class Settlement in Tapia Wins Prelim. Approval
FUN FACTORY: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Husar Alleges Deceptive Automotive Parts' Packaging
GEORGE W. AGAK: Denial of Arbitration in Wells Fargo Suit Affirmed
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
GOOGLE LLC: Hewitt Suit Sues Over Unfair Real-Time Bidding System
GOTTA GETTA: Martinez Seeks Cooks & Bagel Makers' Unpaid Wages
GREATBANC TRUST: Clare ERISA Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to S.D.N.Y.
GROUND EFFECTS: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Coffman Balks at Proposed Merger Deal With Jazz
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Anderson Claims
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Halcon Suit Says
HALLEN CONSTRUCTION: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Lewis Suit Affirmed
HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE: Faces Oyie FEHA Suit Over Disparate Treatment
HAWKINSON NISSAN: Jones Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
HEADLANDS VENTURES: Faces Aguirre Employment Suit in California
HIGHMARK INC: Faces Cole Suit Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOTEL VALENCIA: $91K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in McShan Suit
HOTEL VALENCIA: Class Settlement in McShan Suit Has Final Approval
HUMANA AT HOME: Class Settlement in Kinkead Suit Gets Prelim. OK
HUNTER ROBERTS: Fails to Pay Construction Expenses, Suit Says
ICON CLINICAL: Faces Nesbeth ERISA Suit Over 401(k) Plan Fees
IN2VISION PROGRAMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davtyan Alleges
INSURANCE SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in Peterson ERISA Suit
INTEL CORP: Londers Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to M.D. Florida
INVESTORS BANK: Faces Wilkerson Suit Over OD Fee Practices
INVESTORS MANAGEMENT: Chacon Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid OT
J&D PIZZA: Coronel Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Spread-of-Hours Pay
J. M. SMUCKER: Marthaller Suit Moved From E.D. Wash. to W.D. Mo.
J. M. SMUCKER: Thompson Class Suit Moved From E.D. Tex. to W.D. Mo.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moreno Sues Over Deceptive OGX Branded Shampoos
JUUL LABS: Sandys Suit Moved from N.D. Calif. to E.D. Virginia
KEMPER CORPORATION: Faces Antonio Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
MAGIC LANTERN: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Laquidara Suit Claims
MANDARICH LAW: Drago Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
MDL 2741: Monsanto's Bid for Reconsideration re NBFA Case Denied
MDL 2804: Three Prescription Opioids Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2816: Sterling v. Livanova Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
MDL 3001: Four Casino-Style Games Actions Moved to N.D. Calif.
MEDNAX SERVICES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Larsen Suit Says
MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Calhoun Suit v. MDOC
MIDEA AMERICA: Faces Sporn Suit Over Omitted Warranty Statements
MISSISSIPPI: Legislators Seek Review of Stallworth Suit Ruling
ML ENTERPRISE: Reyes Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
MOUNTAIRE CORP: $65-Mil. Settlement in Cuppels Suit Gets Final OK
MULTIPLAN CORP: Faces Franchi Suit Over Unfair Merger Process
NATHANSON LAW: Kaur Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Canale Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL STEEL: Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
NEVADA: Vidal Ordered to Complete IFP Application in Suit v. NDOC
NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Miner Alleges
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Eliason Suit Over Defective Automobile CVTs
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Douglas Securities Suit
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Securities Suit Seeks Class Certification
NURTURE INC: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Skibicki Says
ORAMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Felice Securities Suit Over 2019 Plan
OSF INVESTMENTS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Williams Alleges
OUT OF BOUNDS: Svanyuta Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Brewery Staff
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT: Stebbins Seeks Service Technicians' Unpaid OT
PIZZA HUT: Fisher Sues Over Illegal Collection of 8.5% Sales Tax
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Faces Glover-Brown Insurance Suit in N.D. Ga.
PROHEALTH CARE: Herman Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
RFSC LLC: Potter Files TCPA Suit in District of Colorado
ROBERT L. SALDUTTI: Evans Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ferreiro Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lybrook Securities Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Norvell Suit Moved From D. Ore. to S.D. Fla.
RT PIZZA: Hurt Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action
SAFEWAY INC: Frost Sues Over Mislabeled Infants' Pain Relievers
SCI KENTUCKY: Denial of Bid to Certify Class in Southern Affirmed
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Reed Internet Casinos Suit Seeks Class Status
SMART MORTGAGE: Noe Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Loan Officers
SONY ELECTRONICS: Guerriero Sues Over Cameras' Faulty Shutters
SOUTHBRIDGE TOWERS: Faces Goldberg Suit Over Gross Mismanagement
SQUARE GROVE: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STAHL/SCOTT FETZER: Negulis Sues Over Painters' Improper OT Wages
STANDARD DOSE: Faces Olsen ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
SVAKOM DESIGN: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TD AMERITRADE: Odeh Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
TD AMERITRADE: Shaeffer Class Suit Moved From D. Neb. to S.D. Fla.
TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Esqueda Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Thai Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
U.S. SOCCER: C.D. California Enters Final Judgment in Morgan Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Venice Files Suit in California Superior Court
UNILEVER US: Anderson Sues Over Mislabeled Bodywash Products
UNITED STATES SOCCER: Morgan Appeals Class Action Settlement Order
UNIVERSAL SCREEN: Faces ARL Suit Over Membership Renewal Program
URSA MAJOR: Conner Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Consumers
VIRGIN SCENT: Hand Sanitizers Contain Toxic Chemical, Suit Claims
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATE: Burns Balks at Illegal Credit Report Access
WARTBURG COLLEGE: Warner Suit Removed to Northern District of Iowa
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Faces Mator ERISA Suit Over Excessive RPS Fees
ZGTL LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
ZNN DELI: Faces Lizama Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Still Faces Claims Under Insurance Pacts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio faces 118 Personal Injury Cases
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Fukuda Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK FUKUDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, ACG 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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01129-RMG
(D.S.C., April 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants allegedly failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and developed serious medical
conditions and complications.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
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
3M COMPANY: Ford Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLYDE FORD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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. 2:21-cv-00889-RMG (D.S.C., March 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF 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.
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. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
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 Ford 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,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
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
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Baltimore Antitrust Suit Dismissal Voided
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ACTELION
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS US, INC.; JANSSEN
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and ACTELION
CLINICAL RESEARCH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-2233 (4th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacates the
district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiffs commenced the antitrust class action against
Actelion, alleging that Actelion extended its patent monopoly for
its branded drug Tracleer -- a drug to treat pulmonary artery
hypertension -- beyond the patent's expiration date. They alleged
that Actelion did so "through illegitimate means" with the intent
of precluding competition from generic drug manufacturers and
charging supracompetitive prices for Tracleer, in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws. They claim that as a result of
Actelion's illegal monopolization, they were injured by having to
pay supracompetitive prices for Tracleer for some three years after
Actelion's patent for Tracleer expired.
The complaint alleges that Actelion is a pharmaceutical company
that obtained an exclusive license under a patent for Tracleer --
U.S. Patent No. 5,292,740 -- which was issued in 1994 to
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. Tracleer, which contains the compound
bosentan, is the only oral treatment for pulmonary arterial
hypertension, and Actelion made billions of dollars in profits from
sales of the drug. Patent '740 expired on Nov. 20, 2015.
The complaint concluded with allegations that Actelion violated
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2, as made
privately enforceable through Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act,
id. Sections 15, 26. It also alleged violations of 25 state
antitrust statutes and 20 state consumer protection statutes.
On Actelion's motion, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ruling
that all but four of the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the
applicable four-year statutes of limitations because the action was
commenced on Nov. 19, 2018, more than four years after "Actelion's
last overt anticompetitive act" in February 2014. The court
identified that act as the consummation of settlement agreements
between Actelion and several generic manufacturers, resulting in
the dismissal of the manufacturers' antitrust actions against
Actelion. With respect to the four claims that it held were not
barred by limitations -- claims made under the laws of Maine,
Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin -- the court ruled that the
Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert them because the Plaintiffs
made no purchases of Tracleer in those States and thus suffered no
harm that implicated their laws.
From the district court's order of dismissal dated Sept. 30, 2019,
the Plaintiffs filed the appeal. With respect to the district
court's statute-of-limitations ruling, the Plaintiffs contend that
the district court committed "three serious errors. First, the
court erroneously concluded that "the statute of limitations began
to run against the Plaintiffs before they suffered any injury, in
clear contravention of the standard antitrust accrual rule." Under
that rule, the statute of limitations would begin to run once the
Plaintiffs were actually injured -- that is, once Actelion's patent
expired and the plaintiffs paid supracompetitive prices for
Tracleer. Second and similarly, the court failed to accept that an
action "does not accrue with respect to a plaintiff's damages until
those damages become more than speculative," citing Zenith Radio
Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 339 (1971). And
third, the court "failed to apply the continuing-violation
doctrine," under which the statutes of limitations would begin to
run from each sale after November 2015 that Actelion made at
supracompetitive prices.
The Plaintiffs also challenge the district court's dismissal of
Counts 6, 10, 33, and 44 of the complaint -- involving the class
members' claims against Actelion under the laws of Maine,
Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin -- based on a lack of standing.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacates and remands, concluding that
the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims did not accrue until the they were
injured by paying supracompetitive prices for Tracleer after the
patent expired in November 2015. Therefore, their action commenced
in November 2018 was timely.
Moreover, even if the February 2014 date, when Actelion entered
into agreements settling the generic manufacturers' antitrust
claims, marked the last anticompetitive act, damages could not then
have been recovered by the Plaintiffs because their claims would
not have been ripe for judicial resolution in view of the
speculative nature of future conduct that might have thereafter
occurred. Therefore, limitations would not begin to run until the
claims became ripe.
In any event, because the Plaintiffs alleged that Actelion
continued with anticompetitive acts after November 2015 in selling
Tracleer at supracompetitive prices, new limitations periods began
to run from each sale that caused the Plaintiffs damages.
Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit vacates the district court's
limitations ruling.
As to the district court's standing ruling, the Fourth Circuit
largely agrees with the district court. But while the Plaintiffs
cannot for that reason seek relief under the laws of States in
which they made no purchases of Tracleer -- i.e., Maine, Minnesota,
Vermont, and Wisconsin, as well as others -- they nonetheless
might, if a class is certified under Rule 23(c), be able to advance
claims under those laws on behalf of class members who purchased
Tracleer in those States. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit
concludes that the allegations asserting violations of the laws in
States where the Plaintiffs did not purchase Tracleer may yet be
considered when determining whether the plaintiffs can, based on a
Rule 23 analysis, represent class members who purchased Tracleer in
those States, and if they can, then whether the Plaintiffs can
include those claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2zjee66x from Leagle.com.
Sharon K. Robertson -- srobertson@cohenmilstein.com -- David O.
Fisher -- dfisher@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL, in New York City, for Appellants.
Gregory T. Lawrence -- greg@lawrencelawllc.com -- LAWRENCE LAW,
LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Katherine B. Forrest --
kforrest@cravath.com -- Damaris Hernandez -- dhernandez@cravath.com
-- CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, in New York City, for Appellees.
ALL METRO HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cantave Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELINE CANTAVE, MARCELLA CLOVIS, and ANN MARIE BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs v. ALL METRO HEALTH CARE SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC., ALL
METRO HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., ALL METRO FIELD SERVICE WORKERS
PAYROLL SERVICES CORPORATION, ALL METRO AIDES INC., DAVID P.
MIDDLETON, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03111
(S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021) 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 Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as home health
aides.
All Metro Health Care Services Of New York, Inc. is a licensed home
care service agency that provides home care service options to
clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Rand, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 286-1425
Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
ALL MY SONS: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Grogan Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants ALL MY SONS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LLC, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JACOB
GROGAN, PAUL JONES, TERRANCE LEE, and TREAVON WHITAKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALL
MY SONS MOVING AND STORAGE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LLC; and ALL MY
SONS MOVING AND STORAGE OF RHODE ISLAND; and CHRIS GENERALE, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11531-PBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Boston.
In this class action under the Massachusetts wage laws, Plaintiffs
and the putative class members were employees of All My Sons Moving
company. The Plaintiffs worked as movers, performing the actual
moving tasks on their assigned jobs, including carrying furniture,
loading the trucks, unloading the furniture, and then lugging it up
flights of stairs in the customer's homes. These workers were paid
an hourly rate equal to the applicable Massachusetts minimum wage,
or slightly higher for those individuals who were approved to drive
the moving trucks.
The Plaintiffs allege that they and all other similarly situated
movers who worked out of a Massachusetts location were required to
work significant hours "off the clock," for which they received no
hourly wages, due to All My Sons' company-wide time-keeping and
compensation policies. The Plaintiffs further allege that this
uniform practice violates the Massachusetts wage laws because it
results in Plaintiffs and others similar situated earning less than
the statutory minimum wage and earning less than their hourly wage
rate each week.
The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order
dated March 31, 2021, allowing Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In that order, the Court certified the following
classes: (1) All Drivers employed by All My Sons Moving who
performed work from an office location in Massachusetts, from April
26, 2016 to the present; and (2) All Helpers employed by All My
Sons Moving who performed work from an office location in
Massachusetts, from April 26, 2016 to the present.
The appellate case is captioned as Grogan, et al. v. All My Sons
Business Development LLC, et al., Case No. 21-8010, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 14,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form is due on April 29, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners ALL MY SONS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LLC, ALL MY
SONS MOVING AND STORAGE OF RHODE ISLAND LLC, and CHRIS GENERALE are
represented by:
Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC
75 Park Plaza, 4th Flr.
Boston, MA 02116-0000
Telephone: (617) 367-0025
E-mail: hoffmand@jacksonlewis.com
Plaintiffs-Respondents JACOB GROGAN, PAUL JONES, TERRANCE LEE, and
TREAVON WHITAKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
729 Boylston St., Ste 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
- and -
Matthew Patton, Esq.
SMITH & BRINK, P.C.
350 Grainte St.
Braintree, MA 02184
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Montalvo Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to W.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BEIRA MONTALVO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS, LLC and GROUPE
SEB USA, INC., Case No. 9:20-cv-82384, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
April 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00504-NR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of implied
warranties, breach of express warranty, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act by failing to disclose to consumers the defect
on All-Clad's Stainless Steel Collections of cookware.
All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC is a cookware manufacturer, with its
principal place of business located in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
Groupe SEB USA, Inc. is a cookware manufacturer, with its principal
place of business located in Millville, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
400 N. Tampa Street, 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
Martha@whitfieldbryson.com
harper@whitfieldbryson.com
ALL-WEATHER SEAL: Whaley Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER WHALEY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALL-WEATHER
SEAL OF WEST MICHIGAN, INC., A Michigan Domestic Profit
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00302-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that provides for the
following:
1. Conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective defined as:
"All current and former In-stallers and/or Service
Technicians who worked for All-Weather Seal of West Michigan,
Inc. at any time during the past three years."
2. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form
for dissemination to members of the proposed FLSA Collective
by regular U.S. mail, email, text message, and social media;
3. Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative members of
the proposed FLSA Collective by providing their full names,
dates of employment, last known address, telephone number,
and email addresses, in computer-readable and searchable
format (e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet) within 14 days
of the entry of the order;
4. Giving putative members of the proposed FLSA Collective 60
days from the date the Court-authorized notice and consent
form is mailed to join this case if they so choose; and
5. Requiring that throughout the 60-day notice period requested,
the Defendant must post the Plaintiff's proposed notice in
its facility or in places likely to be viewed by all members
of the proposed FLSA Collective and to make consent forms
available to them upon request.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA's
overtime requirements by misclassifying him as an independent
contractor and failing to compensate him at a rate of time and one
half for all the hours he worked over 40 each workweek.
All-Weather Seal is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Lowell,
Michigan. The Defendant is in the business of selling residential
home improvement services, remodeling, and renovations primarily
related to windows, doors, siding, and roofing.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 9,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RTZzMp
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010
Kalamazoo, MH 49003-4010
Telephone: (269) 324-3000
E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com
- and -
Mark S. Wilkinson, Esq.
PALADIN EMPLOYMENT LAW PLLC
251 North Rose Street
Suite 200, PMB No 288
Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3860
Telephone: (269) 978-2474
E-mail: mark@paladinemploymentlaw.com
ALLIANCE COAL: Underpays Coal Miners, Rettig et al. Suit Allege
---------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER RETTIG and BRODRICK HINKLE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC,
ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P., ALLIANCE RESOURCES OPERATING
PARTNERS, L.P., ALLIANCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GP, LLC, METTIKI COAL
WV, LLC, and TUNNEL RIDGE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00008-TSK (N.D.W.V., April 6, 2021) files this collective
action complaint against the Defendants seeking all available
remedies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were jointly employed by the Defendants as coal
miners – Plaintiff Rettig was between approximately February 2019
and August 2020, while Plaintiff Hinkle was between approximately
August 2017 and January 2019.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant did not compensate them
and other similarly situated coal miners for the time they spent
performing pre-shift and post-shift work that is integral and
indispensable part of their principal work activities. Although
their arrival time at the facility was recorded in the Defendants'
system, the Defendants did not utilize it for the purpose of paying
them. In addition, the Defendant failed to include the
non-discretionary bonuses in the Plaintiffs and other coal miners'
regular rate of compensation for determining their overtime rate.
As a result, despite regularly working in excess of 40 per week,
the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated coal miners did not
receive appropriate overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiffs say.
The Corporate Defendants operate seven underground mining complexes
in West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas R. Goodwin, Esq.
W. Jeffrey Vollmer, Esq.
GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
300 Summer Street, Suite 1500
Charleston, WV 25301
Tel: (304) 346-7000
E-mail: trg@goodwingoodwin.com
wjv@goodwingoodwin.com
ALLSTATE FIRE: Smith Insurance Suit Removed to District of Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERIKA SMITH, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
A-21-829912-B (Filed February 23, 2021) was removed from the Eighth
Judicial District Court in and for the County of Clark to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March
24, 2021.
The District of Nevada Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-00487-JCM-DJA to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff is currently an Allstate
automobile insurance policyholder. It asserts that Allstate charged
excessive premiums for its auto policies in light of the COVID-19
pandemic. The complaint further alleges that the 15% premium relief
offered by Allstate on April and May 2020 auto premiums was
inadequate.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "[a]ll Nevada residents
who were automobile insurance policyholders of Defendant Allstate
as of March 1, 2020, and who have thereafter continued to be
Allstate automobile insurance policyholders."
The Plaintiff asserts five causes of action: (1) declaratory
relief; (2) breach of contract; (3) 13 breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; (4) bad faith; (5) violation of
Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mercedes S. Menendez, Esq.
ANDERTON & ASSOCIATES
2360 Corporate Circle, Suite 320
Henderson, NV 89074
Telephone: (702) 726-3350
Facsimile: (877) 684-4264
E-mail: mercedes.menendez@allstate.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Clapp Class Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SABRINA CLAPP and DENISE REDFIELD, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC.,
ALPACA SECURITIES LLC, CASH APP INVESTING LLC, SQUARE INC., DOUGH
LLC, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC,
E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, E*TRADE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC,
ETORO USA SECURITIES, INC., FREETRADE, LTD., INTERACTIVE BROKERS
LLC, M1 FINANCE, LLC, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC., ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,
IG GROUP HOLDINGS PLC, TASTYWORKS, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC., FF TRADE
REPUBLIC GROWTH, LLC, TRADING 212 LTD., TRADING 212 UK LTD., WEBULL
FINANCIAL LLC, FUMI HOLDINGS, INC., STASH FINANCIAL, INC., BARCLAYS
BANK PLC, CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC, CITADEL SECURITIES LLC,
MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC, APEX
CLEARING CORPORATION, THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CORPORATION,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00896, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21441-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligence per
se, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and violations of
the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the California
Business and Professions Code by conspiring to one another to
prevent retail investors from buying further stock in the market to
mitigate the Defendants' exposure in their short positions and
forcing retail investors to sell their relevant securities at lower
prices.
Ally Financial Inc. is a financial services company, with its
headquarters located at Ally Detroit Center 500, Woodward Ave.,
Floor 10, Detroit, Michigan.
Alpaca Securities LLC is a financial services company, with its
headquarters at 20 N San Mateo Drive Suite 10, San Mateo,
California.
Cash App Investing LLC is a financial services company
headquartered at 920, SW 6th Avenue Ste. 1200, Portland, Oregon.
Square Inc. is a financial services company, with its headquarters
located at 1455 Market Street, Suite 600, San Francisco,
California.
Dough LLC is a financial services company, with its headquarters
located at 327 N. Aberdeen Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is a financial services company,
with its headquarters located at 1585 Broadway Avenue, New York,
New York.
E*Trade Securities LLC is a financial services company, with its
headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower, Arlington,
Texas.
E*Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company, with
its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas.
E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC is a financial services company,
with its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas.
Etoro USA Securities, INC. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 221 River St., 9th floor, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Freetrade, Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered at
32-38 Leman Street, London, United Kingdom.
Interactive Brokers LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 1 Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut.
M1 Finance, LLC is a financial services company, headquartered at
200 North La Salle Street, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois.
Open To The Public Investing, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 1 State Street Plaza, 10th Floor, New York, New
York.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.
Robinhood Financial, LLC is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite
100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Barclays Bank PLC is a financial services company, headquartered at
745 7th Ave New York, New York.
Stash Financial, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 500 7th Avenue,18th Floor, New York, New York.
IG Group Holdings PLC is a Delaware public limited company and
ultimate corporate parent of Tastyworks, Inc., headquartered at 200
West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1450, Chicago, Illinois.
Tastyworks, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of IG Group Holdings
PLC, headquartered at 100 West Fulton Market Street, Suite 220,
Chicago, Illinois.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company,
with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San
Francisco, California.
Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco,
California.
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.
FF Trade Republic Growth, LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at One Letterman Drive, Building D, 5th Floor, San
Francisco, California.
Trading 212 Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered at
3 Lachezar Stanchev Str., Litex Tower, Floor 10, Sofia 1797,
Bulgaria.
Trading 212 UK Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered
at 107 Cheapside, London, United Kingdom.
Fumi Holdings, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered
in Hunan, China.
Webull Financial LLC is a financial services company, headquartered
at 44 Wall Street, Ste 501, New York, New York.
Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Citadel Securities LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Melvin Capital Management LP is a financial services company,
headquartered at 535 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New
York.
Sequoia Capital Operations LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 2800 Sand Hill Road, Suite 101, Menlo Park,
California.
Apex Clearing Corporation is a financial services company,
headquartered at One Dallas Center, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 1300,
Dallas, Texas.
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation is a financial services
company, headquartered at 55 Water Street, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
- and –
Joshua Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
Facsimile: (267) 507-6048
E-mail: jgabar@grabarlaw.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Dechirico Antitrust Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAN DECHIRICO, ANGEL GUZMAN and JOSHUA PALMER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLY
FINANCIAL INC., ALPACA SECURITIES LLC, CASH APP INVESTING LLC,
SQUARE INC., MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES
LLC, E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, E*TRADE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS,
LLC, ETORO USA SECURITIES, INC., FREETRADE, LTD., INTERACTIVE
BROKERS LLC, M1 FINANCE, LLC, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC.,
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, IG GROUP HOLDINGS PLC, TASTYWORKS, INC., TD
AMERITRADE, INC., THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, CHARLES SCHWAB &
CO. INC., FF TRADE REPUBLIC GROWTH, LLC, TRADING 212 LTD., TRADING
212 UK LTD., WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC, FUMI HOLDINGS, INC., STASH
FINANCIAL, INC., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS,
LLC, CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, SEQUOIA
CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC, APEX CLEARING CORPORATION, THE DEPOSITORY
TRUST & CLEARING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00677, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on April 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21451-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and violations of the Sherman
Act, the Donnelly Act, and the New York Deceptive Trade Practices
Act by conspiring to one another to prevent retail investors from
buying further stock in the market to mitigate the Defendants'
exposure in their short positions and forcing retail investors to
sell their relevant securities at lower prices.
Ally Financial Inc. is a financial services company, with its
headquarters located at Ally Detroit Center 500, Woodward Ave.,
Floor 10, Detroit, Michigan.
Alpaca Securities LLC is a financial services company, with its
headquarters at 20 N San Mateo Drive Suite 10, San Mateo,
California.
Cash App Investing LLC is a financial services company
headquartered at 920, SW 6th Avenue Ste. 1200, Portland, Oregon.
Square Inc. is a financial services company, with its headquarters
located at 1455 Market Street, Suite 600, San Francisco,
California.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is a financial services company,
with its headquarters located at 1585 Broadway Avenue, New York,
New York.
E*Trade Securities LLC is a financial services company, with its
headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower, Arlington,
Texas.
E*Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company, with
its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas.
E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC is a financial services company,
with its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas.
Etoro USA Securities, INC. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 221 River St., 9th floor, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Freetrade, Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered at
32-38 Leman Street, London, United Kingdom.
Interactive Brokers LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 1 Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut.
M1 Finance, LLC is a financial services company, headquartered at
200 North La Salle Street, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois.
Open To The Public Investing, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 1 State Street Plaza, 10th Floor, New York, New
York.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.
Robinhood Financial, LLC is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite
100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Barclays Bank PLC is a financial services company, headquartered at
745 7th Ave New York, New York.
Stash Financial, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 500 7th Avenue,18th Floor, New York, New York.
IG Group Holdings PLC is a Delaware public limited company and
ultimate corporate parent of Tastyworks, Inc., headquartered at 200
West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1450, Chicago, Illinois.
Tastyworks, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of IG Group Holdings
PLC, headquartered at 100 West Fulton Market Street, Suite 220,
Chicago, Illinois.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company,
with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San
Francisco, California.
Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco,
California.
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.
FF Trade Republic Growth, LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at One Letterman Drive, Building D, 5th Floor, San
Francisco, California.
Trading 212 Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered at
3 Lachezar Stanchev Str., Litex Tower, Floor 10, Sofia 1797,
Bulgaria.
Trading 212 UK Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered
at 107 Cheapside, London, United Kingdom.
Fumi Holdings, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered
in Hunan, China.
Webull Financial LLC is a financial services company, headquartered
at 44 Wall Street, Ste 501, New York, New York.
Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Citadel Securities LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Melvin Capital Management LP is a financial services company,
headquartered at 535 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New
York.
Sequoia Capital Operations LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 2800 Sand Hill Road, Suite 101, Menlo Park,
California.
Apex Clearing Corporation is a financial services company,
headquartered at One Dallas Center, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 1300,
Dallas, Texas.
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation is a financial services
company, headquartered at 55 Water Street, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
Kathryn A. Hettler, Esq.
Eugene Zaydfudim, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 213-8311
Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
ALLY FINANCIAL: Fox Antitrust Suit Moved From D. Minn. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIE FOX and PREENON HUQ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC.,
ALPACA SECURITIES LLC, CASH APP INVESTING LLC, SQUARE INC., DOUGH
LLC, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC,
E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, E*TRADE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC,
ETORO USA SECURITIES, INC., FREETRADE, LTD., INTERACTIVE BROKERS
LLC, M1 FINANCE, LLC, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC., ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,
IG GROUP HOLDINGS PLC, TASTYWORKS, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC., FF TRADE
REPUBLIC GROWTH, LLC, TRADING 212 LTD., TRADING 212 UK LTD., WEBULL
FINANCIAL LLC, FUMI HOLDINGS, INC., STASH FINANCIAL, INC., BARCLAYS
BANK PLC, CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC, CITADEL SECURITIES LLC,
MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC, APEX
CLEARING CORPORATION, THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CORPORATION,
Case No. 0:21-cv-00689, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on April 16, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21478-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligence per
se, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Minnesota Antitrust Law of
1971 by conspiring to one another to prevent retail investors from
buying further stock in the market to mitigate the Defendants'
exposure in their short positions and forcing retail investors to
sell their relevant securities at lower prices.
Ally Financial Inc. is a financial services company, with its
headquarters located at Ally Detroit Center 500, Woodward Ave.,
Floor 10, Detroit, Michigan.
Alpaca Securities LLC is a financial services company, with its
headquarters at 20 N San Mateo Drive Suite 10, San Mateo,
California.
Cash App Investing LLC is a financial services company
headquartered at 920, SW 6th Avenue Ste. 1200, Portland, Oregon.
Square Inc. is a financial services company, with its headquarters
located at 1455 Market Street, Suite 600, San Francisco,
California.
Dough LLC is a financial services company, with its headquarters
located at 327 N. Aberdeen Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is a financial services company,
with its headquarters located at 1585 Broadway Avenue, New York,
New York.
E*Trade Securities LLC is a financial services company, with its
headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower, Arlington,
Texas.
E*Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company, with
its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas.
E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC is a financial services company,
with its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas.
Etoro USA Securities, INC. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 221 River St., 9th floor, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Freetrade, Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered at
32-38 Leman Street, London, United Kingdom.
Interactive Brokers LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 1 Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut.
M1 Finance, LLC is a financial services company, headquartered at
200 North La Salle Street, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois.
Open To The Public Investing, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 1 State Street Plaza, 10th Floor, New York, New
York.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.
Robinhood Financial, LLC is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite
100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Barclays Bank PLC is a financial services company, headquartered at
745 7th Ave New York, New York.
Stash Financial, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 500 7th Avenue,18th Floor, New York, New York.
IG Group Holdings PLC is a Delaware public limited company and
ultimate corporate parent of Tastyworks, Inc., headquartered at 200
West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1450, Chicago, Illinois.
Tastyworks, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of IG Group Holdings
PLC, headquartered at 100 West Fulton Market Street, Suite 220,
Chicago, Illinois.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company,
with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San
Francisco, California.
Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco,
California.
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.
FF Trade Republic Growth, LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at One Letterman Drive, Building D, 5th Floor, San
Francisco, California.
Trading 212 Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered at
3 Lachezar Stanchev Str., Litex Tower, Floor 10, Sofia 1797,
Bulgaria.
Trading 212 UK Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered
at 107 Cheapside, London, United Kingdom.
Fumi Holdings, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered
in Hunan, China.
Webull Financial LLC is a financial services company, headquartered
at 44 Wall Street, Ste 501, New York, New York.
Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Citadel Securities LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Melvin Capital Management LP is a financial services company,
headquartered at 535 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New
York.
Sequoia Capital Operations LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 2800 Sand Hill Road, Suite 101, Menlo Park,
California.
Apex Clearing Corporation is a financial services company,
headquartered at One Dallas Center, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 1300,
Dallas, Texas.
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation is a financial services
company, headquartered at 55 Water Street, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
kdennis@gustafsongluek.com
- and –
Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-7062
E-mail: Scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
AMAZON.COM: Diaz Labor Suit Moved from N.D. Calif. to Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Diaz, et al. v. Amazon.com
Inc., et al. 3:20-cv-07792, was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Seattle) on March 24, 2021.
The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-00419-JCC to the proceeding.
Plaintiffs Ricky Diaz, Emanuel Adamson, Juan Manuel Alvarez filed a
putative Class Action Complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon
Logistics, Inc. in Alameda Superior Court, State of California,
Case No. RG20072092 on August 21, 2020. The suit was later
transferred to Northern District of California on Nov. 4, 2020.
in their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action
against Amazon: failure to pay separately and hourly for
nonproductive time; failure to provide paid rest breaks and paid
missed rest break premiums, failure to provide off-duty meal breaks
and failure to pay missed meal break premiums, failure to reimburse
business expenses, unlawful deductions from pay, failure to pay all
wages within a timely manner, failure to provide complete wage
statements, waiting time penalties for failure to pay wages due on
termination, and unfair competition law violations.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Michael Treglio, Esq.
POTTER HANDY, LLP
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: jtreglio@tregliolaw.com
- and -
Mark Dee Potter, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
Megan M. Cooney, Esq.
Michael J. Holecek, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7658
Facsimile: (213) 229-6658
E-mail: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
ksmith@gibsondunn.com
MCooney@gibsondunn.com
mholecek@gibsondunn.com
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Hooks Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Heather Hooks, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Americold Logistics, LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 2021L4 was removed from
the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Warren County, Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois on April 19,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-04072-SLD-JEH to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
AmeriCold Logistics LLC -- https://www.americold.com/ -- is a major
temperature-controlled warehousing and transportation company based
in Atlanta, Georgia, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW PC
55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Fax: (312) 275-7895
Email: aheldut@mcgpc.com
tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason A. Selvey, Esq.
Jody Kahn Mason, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC
150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 787-4949
Fax: (312) 787-4995
Email: selveyj@jacksonlewis.com
jody.mason@jacksonlewis.com
APPLE INC: Larsen Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TERESA LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01652,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-02805-EJD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged participation in
illegal gambling through the promotion and marketing of illegal
gambling games through in-app purchases on Apple's App Store in
violation of Section 8-1-150(a) of the Code of Alabama.
Apple, Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services, headquartered in Cupertino,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Frank Davis, Esq.
John E. Norris, Esq.
Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com
jnorris@davisnorris.com
wbarnett@davisnorris.com
dware@davisnorris.com
APPLE INC: McCloskey Class Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SEAN McCLOSKEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00434,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-02803-EJD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged participation in
illegal gambling through the promotion and marketing of illegal
gambling games through in-app purchases on Apple's App Store in
violation of Section 3763.02 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Apple, Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services, headquartered in Cupertino,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John E. Breen, Esq.
BREEN LAW, LLC
7761 Chetwood Close, Ste. 100
Columbus, OH 43054
Telephone: (614) 374-3324
E-mail: john@breenlegal.com
- and –
Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com
APPLE INC: Payton Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Ga. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICKIE PAYTON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04326, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 16, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-02757-EJD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged participation in
illegal gambling through the promotion and marketing of illegal
gambling games through in-app purchases on Apple's App Store in
violation of the Section 13-8-3(b) of the Georgia Code.
Apple, Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services, headquartered in Cupertino,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven N. Newton, Esq.
STEVEN N. NEWTON, LLC
401 Westpark Court, Suite 200
Peachtree City, GA 30269
Telephone: (678) 837-6398
Facsimile: (678) 831-0707
E-mail: steven@mynewtonlaw.com
snnewtonlaw@gmail.com
- and –
John E. Norris, Esq.
Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com
dware@davisnorris.com
ATLAS TUBE: Jones Sues Over Improper OT Wages and Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
DESHEDRICK JONES, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ATLAS TUBE (ARKANSAS) INC.; and ZEKELMAN
INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00236-BRW (E.D. Ark., March 26,
2021) is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 for discrimination on the
basis of race.
The Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys, fees, as a
result of the Defendants, failure to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Deshedrick Jones is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of and domiciled in the State of Arkansas. The Plaintiff
was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid production worker.
The Defendants operate Atlas Tube as a division of Zekelman
Industries. Zekelman Industries owns structural steel and pipe
manufacturing facilities throughout the country, including in
Arkansas, where hourly-paid production employees like Plaintiff,
initially in a Dunnage Placement position, engage in manual labor
to produce the steel and pipe products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris W. Burks, Esq.
WH LAW, PLLC
1 Riverfront Pl. -- Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: chris@wh.law
ATS INC: Minnesota Court Allows Arbitration in Butler Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J. RUBIN BUTLER, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATS INC.; ATS SPECIALIZED, INC.;
JOHN DOES 1-20; and COMPETITIVE EQUIPMENT SALES, Defendants, Case
No. 20-CV-1631 (PJS/LIB) (D. Minn.), Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the
Defendants' second motion to compel arbitration.
Plaintiff Butler worked as a truck driver for Defendant ATS from
May 2017 until about March 2019. ATS is a truckload carrier that
operates throughout the United States and Canada. Butler was
designated as an independent contractor and participated in ATS's
lease-purchase program, through which he leased a truck from
defendant Competitive Equipment Sales.
In order to become a lease-purchase driver, Butler had to sign
contracts with ATS and Competitive (which are affiliates), and
those contracts contained arbitration clauses. Butler ultimately
discovered that working as an independent contractor for ATS was
not as lucrative as he was (allegedly) promised.
Mr. Butler now brings the putative class and collective action
against Defendants ATS, ATS Specialized, Inc., and Competitive. He
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Truth in Leasing Act, the Federal Forced Labor
Statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), multiple Minnesota statutes, and Minnesota common law.
The Defendants have moved to compel arbitration. The parties agree
that the Court cannot compel arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq. Section 1 of
the FAA provides that "nothing herein contained will apply to
contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other
class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce."
Regardless of whether Butler was working for ATS as an independent
contractor or as an employee, he was within a "class of workers
engaged in interstate commerce," and thus the FAA does not apply to
his contracts with ATS and Competitive.
The question, then, is whether the Court can compel arbitration
under the Minnesota Revised Uniform Arbitration Act ("MRUAA"),
Minn. Stat. Section 572B.01 et seq. Butler argues that the answer
is "no" because, he says, Section 1 of the FAA preempts application
of the MRUAA to his federal claims.
Judge Schiltz concludes that federal law does not preempt the
application of the MRUAA to Butler's claims. He says Butler's
argument treats Secction 1 as a prohibition. In other words, he
reads Section 1 to prohibit any arbitration of the claims of
workers involved in interstate commerce under any law, federal or
state. But Section 1 is an exemption, not a prohibition. Section
1 provides that "nothing herein" -- i.e., nothing in the FAA --
"shall apply" to the contracts of workers engaged in interstate
commerce. Clearly, then, Section 1 merely exempts the contracts of
workers engaged in interstate commerce from one law -- the FAA --
leaving those contracts subject to all other relevant federal and
state laws.
In addition, Judge Schiltz finds that Butler's brief overlooks the
distinction between what laws can be enacted by a state and what
agreements can be reached by private parties. It is true that the
State of Minnesota could not enact a statute prohibiting collective
actions without violating Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A.
v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010). But the MRUAA does
not prohibit collective actions; instead, it restricts a court from
consolidating separate arbitration proceedings only insofar as "an
agreement to arbitrate prohibits consolidation." Section 572B.10
is merely a mechanism to enforce private agreements, and parties
may agree to limit their federal rights without implicating Erie or
reverse-Erie.
Mr. Butler argues that compelling him to arbitrate under the MRUAA
would make it impossible for him to effectively vindicate his
federal statutory rights for two reasons: first, because of limits
on out-of-state discovery and, second, because he cannot afford to
pay the costs of arbitration.
Both arguments are meritless, Judge Schiltz holds. First, although
the discovery available to Butler in the arbitral forum "might not
be as extensive as in the federal courts, by agreeing to arbitrate,
a party trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the
courtroom for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of
arbitration." The Judge therefore finds that Butler will be able
to effectively vindicate his federal statutory rights despite the
limits on out-of-state discovery in the arbitral forum. Second,
Butler does not identify the source of his information about the
hourly fees of arbitrators, nor discuss whether the hourly fees
vary based on state or region. Even putting these problems aside,
Butler's argument fails because at the hearing, the Defendants
agreed to pay all fees, costs, and other expenses of arbitration.
Butler will not have to pay a cent. That eliminates any chance
that he will not be able to effectively vindicate his federal
statutory rights because of an inability to pay arbitration costs.
Mr. Butler asserts that the arbitration clauses are unenforceable
under Minnesota law21 for three reasons: The contracts were induced
by fraud, the contracts are unconscionable, and the contracts are
invalid under Minn. Stat. Section 181.722.
Judge Schiltz finds that (i) the parties did not agree to arbitrate
a claim of fraud in the inducement; (ii) there is simply no
evidence in the record that ATS made a false representation about
the sign-on bonus to Butler or anyone else; (iii) Butler does not
have a viable fraud claim arising out of the representation about
the $4,000 lease-completion bonus; (iv) Butler's fraud claim fails
insofar as it relies on a promise that drivers "could earn
approximately $2,500 weekly"; and (v) the statement that drivers
make "good cash" working for ATS is exactly the sort of vague
statement of superiority that courts reject as insufficient to
sustain a fraud claim.
Judge Schiltz also finds that (i) because "pay" can reasonably be
interpreted as referring to gross pay, and because Butler does not
claim that he (or any other driver) ever had a "zero gross pay"
week, his fraud claim fails; (ii) Butler has no evidence that,
whatever the statement means, the Defendants did not intend to
fulfill their promise when it was made; (iii) a reasonable jury
could not find the statement that Butler could choose to renew the
lease on his original truck or walk away to be a fraudulent
misrepresentation; (iv) Butler has not submitted evidence (or even
claimed) that, had he known that he would have to sign a second
lease in order to receive a bonus for completing the first lease,
he would not have joined the program; (v) the statement the
recruiter fraudulently told Butler that he could receive "home
time" whenever he wanted appears to be confirmed by the terms of
the ICOA; and (vi) he rejects Butler's contention that the
agreements that he signed are void because they were fraudulently
induced.
Mr. Butler next argues that the contracts that he signed -- and the
arbitration clauses within those contracts -- are unconscionable.
Judge Schiltz holds that Butler's unconscionability claims are
contract-formation arguments that primarily focus on pre-contract
behavior. Therefore, for the same reasons that he concluded that
the parties did not agree to arbitrate the issue of fraudulent
inducement, the Judge also concludes that the parties did not agree
to arbitrate the issue of unconscionability.
Turning to the substance of Butler's claims, the Judge finds that
Butler does not declare that he asked to see the contracts before
traveling to Minnesota, or that he asked for paper copies of the
contracts at orientation, or that he asked for additional time to
consider the agreements, or that he asked for time to consult with
an attorney. And thus Butler has submitted nothing that
contradicts defendant's evidence that all of these requests would
have been honored if he had simply made them.
The Judge rejects Butler's argument that the contracts as a whole
are unconscionable. There is no doubt that Butler obtained "real
and tangible benefits" from his contracts; after all, he grossed
$163,731 and netted $15,238 under the contracts in 2018. His
substantive-unconscionability argument thus fails. Even if Butler
is correct that certain of these provisions are substantively
unconscionable, he must show both substantive and procedural
unconscionability to invalidate the ICOA and the lease -- and, for
the reasons described, he has failed to show procedural
unconscionability.
The Judge concludes that Butler must arbitrate his claims and that
the Defendants must pay all of the fees, costs, and other expenses
of that arbitration. The Judge finds that Butler cannot prove that
the arbitration clauses are substantively unconscionable. The
limitations periods also do not render the arbitration clauses
unconscionable. Lastly, even in the absence of a savings clause,
the Court would be authorized under Minnesota law to sever an
unconscionable contractual term and enforce the contract "without
the offending language." Even if the Court could not sever the
fee-splitting provisions, the Defendants' offer to pay the expense
of arbitration would cure any problem with those provisions.
Finally, Butler argues that the agreements are void for illegality
because they misclassified him as an independent contractor in
violation of Minn. Stat. Section 181.722, subd. 2. Because the
agreements are void for illegality, says Butler, the arbitration
clauses are also void, and the Court cannot compel arbitration.
Judge Schiltz does not agree. He holds that Section 181.722, subd.
2 does not prevent the Court from enforcing the arbitration
clauses. Butler's Section 181.722 claim must be arbitrated as it
falls within the scope of the arbitration clauses. His
misclassification argument is distinguishable from his
fraudulent-inducement and unconscionability claims. Those claims
were not arbitrable because they were based on pre-contract
conduct, and therefore did not "arise out of or relate to" the ICOA
or the lease.
Having determined that there is a valid agreement to arbitrate and
that the parties' dispute falls within it, Judge Schiltz granted
the motion to compel arbitration and stay these proceedings. He
ordered the Defendants to pay all fees, costs, and other expenses
of the arbitration. The case is stayed pending resolution of the
arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/prr84mxy from Leagle.com.
Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Manali Arora --
marora@swartz-legal.com -- Joshua Boyette --
jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- and Travis Martindale-Jarvis --
tmartindale@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC; E. Michelle
Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- and Joseph Hashmall -- jhashmall@bm.net
-- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., for plaintiff.
Christopher Eckhart -- CECKHART@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Elizabeth M.
Bolka -- EBOLKA@SCOPELITIS.COM -- and James A. Eckhart --
ECKHART@SCOPELITIS.COM -- SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON &
FEARY, P.C.; Brian A. Wood -- brian.wood@lindjensen.com -- and
Matthew D. Sloneker -- matt.sloneker@lindjensen.com -- LIND JENSEN
SULLIVAN & PETERSON, PA, for defendants.
AUTOASSURE LLC: Kuhn Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD KUHN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AUTOASSURE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00394
(E.D. Mo., April 2, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Service Plan
Specialists, also known as Sales Representative or a Senior Sales
Representative, until early 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that he was only paid a flat hourly rate by
the Defendants despite working more than 40 hours in workweek.
Specifically, the Plaintiff worked more than 100 hours in the 2
week pay period ending May 8, 2019 and 90 hours in the 2 week pay
period ending July 8, 2019. However, the Defendant denied him of
proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a
workweek, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Sales
Representatives seeking to recover al unpaid overtime and an equal
amount of liquidated damages, as well as litigation costs,
attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as may be necessary and appropriate.
Autoassure LLC is a company that sells what is commonly referred to
extended car warranties in Missouri and Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
BACK TO THE ROOTS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Back to the Roots,
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Back to the Roots, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02126-PKC-RER (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Back to the Roots -- https://backtotheroots.com/ -- offers
gardening kits to grow organic and gourmet mushrooms at homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Metals, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA WILSON, RYAN SANDERS, SUSAN CANADA, TABATHA SIDI, TIFFANIE
SKIBICKI, HEATHER AGE, JOLINA MANLEY, JESSICA DAVID, and CASSANDRA
MARTELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00334-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., March 24,
2021) is a class action against Nurture based on the Defendant's
misleading, deceptive and unfair business practices with respect to
the marketing, advertising, labeling, packaging and sale of its
baby food products, which contain levels of toxic heavy metals.
The case involves a straightforward and systematic course of false,
misleading, and unlawful conduct: the Defendant has allegedly
misrepresented and falsely advertised that the baby food products
it sells are organic, nutritious, high quality, and safe for
consumption by infants and young children.
Parents and other caregivers, including the Plaintiff and members
of the Class and Subclasses, reasonably believe that the baby food
they purchase will be healthy, nutritious, and free from harmful
substances and contaminants. However, on February 4, 2021, the
United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and
Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform ("Subcommittee")
published a report ("Subcommittee Report"), revealing its findings
that numerous baby foods, including those manufactured by the
Defendant Nurture, are "tainted with significant levels of toxic
heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury."
Given the health risks associated with the consumption of high
levels of toxic heavy metals, the presence of these substances is
material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek for breach of express and implied warranty,
fraud by omission, intentional and negligent misrepresentation,
quasi contract, unjust enrichment, and restitution, and for
violations of Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and
Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act.
The Plaintiffs believed they were feeding their children healthy,
nutritious foods during the time they purchased and fed their
children Defendant Beech-Nut's baby food products. Due to the false
and misleading claims and omissions by Beech-Nut, the Plaintiffs
were unaware that the baby food products sold by Defendant
Beech-Nut contained any level of toxic heavy metals, and Plaintiffs
would not have purchased the products if that information had been
fully disclosed.
Beech-Nut does business throughout the United States, and sells
baby food products online and at brick-and-mortar retail
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, Floor 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: 412-322-9243
Facsimile: 412-231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown
Michael A. Tompkins
Brett R. Cohen
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
BGIS GLOBAL: Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAVIER DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 21CV376107, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-02804-VKD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages due upon separation, failure to reimburse
necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices.
BGIS Global Integrated Solutions US, LLC is a company that provides
commercial services, with its principal place of business located
in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David L. Cheng, Esq.
Paul M. Suh, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com
psuh@fordharrison.com
BQ EXPRESS: Faces Austin Employment Suit in California State Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BQ Express Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Derrick Austin v. BQ Express Inc. and
Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00297271-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., March 24, 2021),
The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.
BQ Express is located in Sacramento, California and is part of the
freight forwarding services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Court Dismisses Conversion Claim in Omori Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALAN THOMAS OMORI and JOHN DOE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRANDEIS
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-11021-NMG (D. Mass.),
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts:
(i) allowed in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint; and
(ii) allowed Plaintiff John Doe's motion to proceed under a
pseudonym.
The putative class action arises out of the decision by Brandeis to
retain the full amount of tuition and fees collected from students
for the Spring, 2020, semester despite closing its on-campus
facilities and transitioning from in-person to online learning in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs Omor and John Doe
allege that the failure of Brandeis to reimburse students for the
tuition differential between in-person and online education
constitutes breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion.
At the beginning of the Spring, 2020, academic term, the Plaintiffs
were enrolled as full-time undergraduate students at Brandeis
University, a private educational institution in Waltham,
Massachusetts. The students had registered and paid for in-person
courses, purportedly expecting to receive access to on-campus
instruction, facilities and experience.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Brandeis provided its students with
such an on-campus, in-person educational experience and offered
only a few online courses. On March 11, 2020, however, Brandeis
announced that all of its classes would be conducted in an online
format due to the spread of the coronavirus. In the following
days, Brandeis closed its library and other campus facilities,
cancelled all in-person meetings and events, required all
non-exempt students to move off campus and declared that
remote-only instruction would continue for the remainder of the
semester. The University offered students prorated refunds of room
and board but declined to refund tuition and other fees.
In response, the Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of
other students, brought the four-count complaint, alleging breach
of contract (express and implied (Counts I & II), unjust enrichment
(Count III) and conversion (Count IV). They seek to recover from
Brandeis tuition and fees and/or room and board allegedly paid in
consideration for "in-person instruction and use of campus
facilities" which were denied during the second half of the Spring,
2020, academic term.
Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Complaint and Plaintiff John Doe's motion to proceed under a
pseudonym.
I. Motion to Dismiss
As a threshold matter, Judge Gorton holds the contention of the
University that the Plaintiffs' claims are simply disguised
educational malpractice claims barred under Massachusetts law and
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is
unavailing. He says the complaint challenges neither the substance
nor the quality of the specific online courses or curriculum
provided by Brandeis. Moreover, the Plaintiffs do not complain
that the online education provided by Brandeis was ineffective, or
that they were unable to learn the relevant subject matter or earn
academic credits. Instead, they seek the reimbursement for
services for which they purportedly bargained and paid, i.e.
in-person instruction and access to on-campus facilities. Such
claims sound in contract, not educational malpractice, and are
therefore justiciable.
Having concluded that the Plaintiffs have not made impermissible
claims for educational malpractice, Judge Gorton determines whether
the Plaintiffs have stated claims for relief as to each Count.
The Judge finds that the factual allegations in the complaint
support the inference that Brandeis should have reasonably expected
its prospective students to understand its promotion of "hands-on
experience" and "state-of-the-art studios", among other things, to
be an offer of in-person instruction and on-campus facilities and
experience. The complaint plausibly submits, furthermore, that
students paid the (higher) on-campus tuition and fees charged for
the Spring, 2020, academic term and registered for on-campus
courses in consideration for receiving such services, hence forming
a contract. The claim is that, by purportedly denying students
such services while retaining full tuition, Brandeis has breached
that contract.
Although Brandeis has reserved the right to make some changes to
its course offerings, the Judge cannot, at this stage of the
litigation, rule as a matter of law that the disclaimer includes
the right to convert all in-person courses to an online format.
Accordingly, he finds that the Plaintiffs have stated a claim for
breach of contract and the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied
as to Counts I and II.
The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs state plausibly that they
conferred a benefit on Brandeis (on-campus tuition and fees) and
that Brandeis accepted that benefit without providing the on-campus
experience for which the Plaintiffs paid, namely, in-person
instruction and access to on-campus resources and facilities. The
Plaintiffs also state plausibly that retention of such tuition and
fees by the University is unjust in light of the factual allegation
that the cost of providing online courses is less than in-person
courses. For those reasons, the Judge denies the Defendant's
motion as to Count III.
To the extent the Plaintiffs contend that Brandeis has converted
their right to in-person education, moreover, those allegations
likewise cannot support a claim for conversion because such rights
do not constitute "personal property" for the purpose of that tort.
Thus, Count IV will be dismissed.
II. Motion to Proceed by Pseudonym
Doe also seeks leave to proceed under a pseudonym. Although he
filed his motion only after filing the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, because Doe has stated that disclosure of his identity
would cause him severe harm and harassment and the Defendant does
not currently oppose the request, Judge Gorton allows his motion
subject to later challenge if the case should proceed to trial.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gorton allowed the Defendant's
motion to dismiss to Count IV but is otherwise denied. Count IV is
dismissed. The Plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym is
allowed, for the time being.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/neuacdm9 from Leagle.com.
BRYAN COWDERY: McElwee Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MCELWEE and KENDALL HARRIS, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BRYAN COWDERY, INC. and BRYAN COWDERY, Case
No. 2:21-cv-01265-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 24, 2021) seeks to to
collect unpaid compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
Plaintiff Amanda McElwee is an individual, a United States citizen,
and a resident of Ross County, Ohio. Plaintiff Kendall Harris is an
individual, a United States citizen, and a resident of Pike County,
Ohio.
Bryan Cowdery is in the parcel delivery business. The Defendants
contract with FedEx or FedEx affiliates to deliver packages to
customers in central and southern Ohio. According to its website,
the Defendants also deliver packages to some areas in northern West
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-4134
Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com
CALIBER HOLDINGS: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUPE RODRIGUEZ and ARTHUR BEBEKYAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CALIBER HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, CALIBER BODYWORKS, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV10037, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 19,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03351 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal breaks or pay premiums,
failure to provide rest breaks or pay premiums, failure to timely
pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
provide wages upon separation, and unfair business practices.
Caliber Holdings Corporation is a provider of auto repair services,
with its principal place of business located in Texas.
Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. is an automobile services company based in
San Antonio, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Nancy Nguyen, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com
CALIFORNIA EXOTIC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Exotic
Novelties, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. California Exotic
Novelties, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03413 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CalExotics -- https://calexotics.com/ -- is the world's largest and
most respected adult intimate products manufacturer.[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
CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE: Faces Anwar Fraud Suit Over BS-MD Programs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALI ANWAR, RAHUL RAMAKRISHNAN, and KYLE M. GO, for themselves and
all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00297419 (Calif., Super., Sacramento
Cty., March 25, 2021) arises from for-profit-school-fraud tragedy.
Defendant CNU targeted its sales and marketing efforts at minority
communities. Allegedly, it repeatedly and unambiguously told the
Plaintiffs and the Class members, orally and in writing, that if
they enrolled in one of CNU's combined BS-MD Programs
(collectively, "BS-MD Program"), they were guaranteed admission to
CNU's medical school after three years of undergraduate work --
saving money and time, and avoiding the risk of non-admission to
medical school -- provided only that they met specified objective
and quantitative criteria.
CNU repeatedly said their spots in its medical school would be
"reserved." Elsewhere CNU said that an interview would be required
for the transition from the undergraduate College of Health
Sciences ("CHS") to the College of Medicine ("COM"), but
systematically assured prospective students that the interview was
a "formality," and that CNU would prepare them for it, the suit
says.
Using this sales pitch, CNU allegedly recruited students that were
far otherwise too good for it. The Plaintiffs and Class members
relied on these promises, they forewent opportunities to attend
better established, better reputed, and/or less expensive
educational institutions such as the University of California,
institutions offering a traditional college experience rather than
classes in an office building in an office park. They enrolled in,
and paid tuition -- in cash -- to CNU.
According to the complaint, CNU knew all along that its BS-MD
Program was a sham, providing no guarantees. Additionally, CNU knew
that it had never received approval from the California Bureau of
Postsecondary Education (the "BPPE"), which regulates private
postsecondary educational institutions operating in California, to
offer such a combined program. However, CNU did not disclose what
it knew to Plaintiffs or Class members, added the suit.
California Northstate University College of Medicine is a private
for-profit medical school located in Elk Grove.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
J. Mark Moore, Esq.
GALLO LLP
100 Pine St., Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 257-8800
E-mail: rgallo@gallo.law
nimoore@gallo.law
CBS TV: Filing of Opt-in Notices Under Seal in Harapeti Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SILVA HARAPETI, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-20961-WILLIAMS/LOUIS (S.D. Fla.),
Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denies the Plaintiff's Motion to File
Opt-In Notices Pseudonymously or in the Alternative Under Seal.
The case is brought by Plaintiff Harapeti on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated individuals against CBS Television
Stations, Inc. and CBS Broadcasting, Inc. for unpaid wages and
overtime due to misclassification of employee status under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219 ("FLSA"); and on
behalf of the Plaintiff individually for unlawful, retaliatory
discharge in violation of the FLSA.
The Court previously granted, in part, the Plaintiff's Corrected
Motion for Conditional Certification and Facilitation of
Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). In
doing so, it conditionally certified a class of employees who
worked for the Defendants at WFOR-TV as a Freelance Television
Journalist or Producer at any time within the three years prior to
the filing of this action, and allowed individuals from within this
conditionally certified class to opt-in to the litigation by filing
an opt-in notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Now, the Plaintiff seeks to file these opt-in notices either
pseudonymously or under seal to conceal the identities of the
opt-in plaintiffs from the Defendants and the public. The
Plaintiff's basis for this request is that there are a "body of
putative opt-in Plaintiffs and/or witnesses within WFOR-TV and
outside of the Miami, Florida television market who desire to join
the lawsuit and may join the lawsuit provided that they remain
anonymous to the public because they fear retaliation or fear being
'blackballed' in the industry for participating in litigation
against a media conglomerate such as the Defendants in the
action."
At a March 9, 2021 status conference, the Court permitted the
Plaintiff to supplement the Motion to Seal with evidence, as no
evidence was attached to support the Plaintiff's factual averments
in the Motion. The Plaintiff filed two declarations: The
declaration of Kristen Cole, a former employee of WCBS-TV in New
York; and the declaration of Silvia Harapeti. The declarations
describe the work conditions these two journalists endured over
their combined 17 years with the Defendants, from 2001 (Cole) to
2018 (Harpeti).
In response to both the Motion to Seal and the supplemental
evidence, the Defendants maintain that the Plaintiff has not
provided a basis on which to proceed anonymously, and that granting
the Motion to Seal would be contrary to controlling precedent.
In determining whether a plaintiff has a substantial privacy right
that outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded
presumption of openness, courts should look to the following
factors: "(1) whether plaintiffs seeking anonymity are challenging
governmental activity; (2) whether they will be required to
disclose information of the utmost intimacy; (3) whether plaintiffs
will be compelled to admit their intention to engage in illegal
conduct and thus risk criminal prosecution; (4) whether the
plaintiffs were minors; (5) whether they were threatened with
violence or physical harm by proceeding in their own names and; (6)
whether their anonymity posed a unique threat of fundamental
unfairness to the defendant."
Magistrate Judge Louis finds that the Plaintiff's Motion does not
contend that the case involves matters of a highly sensitive nature
nor that opt-in plaintiffs would face a real danger of physical
harm. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges a generalized fear on behalf
of witnesses or opt-in plaintiffs of retaliation by their employers
and being "blackballed" from their industry as a whole. However,
such "generalized assertions of fear do not outweigh the customary
and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial
proceedings.
The Plaintiff supports her Motion with two declarations, which
evidence a toxic and extremely problematic work environment for
many years preceding her filing of the suit, but the evidence
provided by the declarants, according ot Magistrate Judge Louis,
falls far short of articulating the unique threat that might
justify deviation from the presumption of openness. Not only is
the proffered reason for anonymity generalized, the circumstances
surrounding the litigation fail to meet any of the factors
considered by the Court in determining whether the opt-in
plaintiffs have a substantial privacy right that outweighs the
presumption of openness. There is no challenge to governmental
activity; the disclosure of intimate information is not required;
there is no risk of criminal prosecution; there are no minors
involved; and there is no alleged threat of physical violence or
harm.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff contends that because this is an FLSA
collective action with a named plaintiff, Rule 10(a) is satisfied;
and because opt-in plaintiffs need only to file their written
consent to become a party plaintiff, opt-in plaintiffs should be
treated differently and be allowed to file their consents
anonymously.
Magistrate Judge Louis finds that the Plaintiff provides no support
for this proposition, and unlike traditional class actions in which
a few named plaintiffs represent a largely anonymous class, the
FLSA specifically requires each individual additional plaintiff to
affirmatively opt-in to a case by filing a written consent. As
there is no dispute that opt-in plaintiffs are indeed parties to
the lawsuit, the fact that one Plaintiff is named does not
alleviate or moot the presumption of openness in judicial
proceedings.
For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Louis denies the Plaintiff's
Motion. Any employee who desires to opt-in to the litigation must
do so by filing a public notice of consent to join.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2kv2mnfb from Leagle.com.
CHAE INC: Appeals Court Flips Ruling on Atty. Fees in Kayshel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RUHUL KAYSHEL, Appellant v. CHAE, INC.,
Respondent, Case No. 80580-1-I (Wash. App.), the Court of Appeals
of Washington, Division One, reverses and remands the trial court's
ruling on the division of attorney fees.
Two attorneys, Harish Bharti and Stephen Teller, associated to
represent Ruhul Kayshel on a discrimination case and a wage and
contract class action case against Kayshel's employer. Bharti and
Teller entered into a one-page, handwritten fee division agreement.
Teller withdrew prior to the class case reaching settlement. After
the class case settled, Bharti and Teller disputed how to share
their portion of the court-approved contingency fees in the class
case.
The trial court disagreed with Bharti that Teller should receive
nothing and awarded Teller a percentage of the fees based on the
fee division agreement and Bharti's promises to Teller that Bharti
would honor that agreement.
Background
On September 9, 2014, Kayshel retained Teller, principal of Teller
& Associates, PLLC, as his attorney against his former employer
O'Brien Auto Group. Teller initiated two lawsuits. First, Teller
filed a race discrimination suit on behalf of Kayshel,
individually. Second, on October 6, 2014, Teller filed a wage and
contract suit on behalf of Kayshel and a putative class of
employees. Kayshel and Teller signed a legal services agreement
that addressed associating with counsel. The agreement also
provided for a scenario in which Kayshel discharged Teller or
Teller withdrew.
Mr. Teller initially associated with the law firm Terrell,
Marshall, Daudt & Willie, PLLC, as class co-counsel. After Terrell
encouraged early mediation, Kayshel sought advice from attorney
Bharti, principal of Bharti Law Group. Bharti then substituted in
for the Terrell firm who withdrew. Bharti reached out to law firm
Friedman Rubin as class co-counsel.
On April 18, 2015, more than half a year after Kayshel retained
Teller, Teller and Bharti met over breakfast and signed a one-page,
handwritten fee division agreement on both the discrimination case
and the class case. The two agreed that Bharti would receive 35
percent and Teller would receive 65% of the contingent legal fees
in the discrimination case and both would split costs. In the class
case, Bharti would receive 23% and Teller would receive 12% of the
contingent legal fees. The Bharti/Teller Agreement only included
information regarding the percentage that Bharti and Teller were to
divide the contingency fees.
After the meeting, Bharti emailed Teller memorializing the contents
of the agreement. The email further clarified, "After 65%
contingency fee is paid to Friedman Rubin, out of the remaining 35%
contingency fee, we have agreed that you receive 1/3 (11.6%) share
of the contingency fee and I receive 2/3 (23.4%) share of [the]
contingency fee." Bharti also wrote, "Client has already given
phone approval, will take care of getting client's written approval
of the attached agreement." Kayshel never signed the Bharti/Teller
Agreement.
About two weeks later, on May 4, 2015, Kayshel signed a "JOINT
PROSECUTION AND JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT" confirming that "any fees"
to Teller would come from the 35% contingency fees distributed to
Bharti. This agreement was between Bharti and Friedman Rubin for
the litigation of the class case with Kayshel as one of the class
representatives. The Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement stated, "This
agreement supersedes all prior agreements in this matter." Bharti
and Kenneth Friedman of Friedman Rubin also signed the Agreement.
Teller did not sign the Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement. Bharti and
Friedman Rubin agreed to be jointly responsible. Friedman Rubin was
responsible for "trying the case, including related activities such
as motions in limine, jury instructions, trial briefs and the like"
and "covering all future costs and expenses related to the
prosecution of the case." Bharti would "take the lead for purposes
of client contact."
The Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement recognized that "the relative
amount of actual hours expended may not necessarily directly
correlate with the agreed allocation of fees" and that "hours
exp[e]nded are not the sole measure of the fee distribution." The
Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement acknowledged that Bharti had
"already devoted considerable time" representing Kayshel who
expected Bharti to be able to have "walk in meetings at short
notice, weekend and late evening meetings, as well as attending to
client concerns at any hour of the day or night, as necessary." In
other words, the Agreement recognized that Kayshel was a demanding
client.
The Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement indicated that any contingent
legal fees were to be divided as follows: 65% to Friedman Rubin,
35% to Bharti and "any fee shared by Bharti with Steve Teller will
be shared out of this 35% contingent fee."
Around September 2015, after the discrimination case was resolved,
Kayshel wrote to the trial judge asking that the opposing counsel
send the settlement check directly to Kayshel because Kayshel fired
Teller on the discrimination case. Kayshel also asked the trial
court and opposing counsel not to send Teller any information about
the discrimination case. Teller and Kayshel settled their fee
dispute in that case a few weeks later.
In October 2015, parties explored possible mediation in the class
case. At that time, Bharti asked for Teller's time sheets. Teller
followed up a phone conversation with Bharti with an email on
October 28, 2015, that provided the time sheets and thanked Bharti
for keeping his honor regarding the Bharti/Teller Agreement.
Mr. Teller said he would speak with his associates about possibly
withdrawing from the class case. Bharti simply responded that he
did not anticipate removing Kayshel as a class representative even
if they add other named plaintiffs. Teller withdrew on November 25,
2015.
About 10 months later, on September 23, 2016, the trial court
granted class certification and appointed Bharti and attorneys from
Friedman Rubin as class counsel. Trial occurred from June 12, 2018,
to June 28, 2018. While the jury deliberated, the parties agreed to
a $2 million settlement. On September 7, 2018, the trial court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.
On November 5, 2018, Bharti and Davidheiser moved for $800,000 in
attorney fees (40% of the $2 million settlement). To support the
reasonableness of the requested fee, they included declarations of
multiple attorneys, including Teller, and asserted the attorney
hourly rates were typical and reasonable.
On January 11, 2019, the trial court granted final approval of the
settlement including $800,000 in attorney fees. The trial court
determined an award of "$800,000 in attorney fees to be reasonable,
both as a percentage of the common fund and under the lodestar
method."
On April 10, 2019, Teller emailed Davidheiser about his fee.
Davidheiser responded that the fees came in and were disbursed to
Bharti, and that it is their understanding that Bharti will
distribute your share directly to Teller. Bharti and Teller could
not come to an agreement on the fees.
On August 26, 2019, Bharti motioned the King County Superior Court
"regarding distribution of approved attorney's fees and costs."
Bharti filed the motion with the same judge who considered the
motion for and approved the $800,000 attorney fees. Bharti asked
the trial court to deny Teller attorney fees or limit his fees to
no more than $17,500. Bharti argued Teller was not entitled to fees
because he represented only one class member, he withdrew his
representation prior to class certification, he did not contribute
to most of the work (e.g., discovery, jury trial, and settlement
negotiation), the trial court did not appoint him as class counsel,
and his fees were not part of the approved class settlement.
Mr. Teller responded to Bharti's motion arguing he relied on
Bharti's assurances that he would honor their agreement before
voluntarily withdrawing to avoid a potential conflict with Kayshel.
Teller argued he asserted a lien on the money in Bharti's
possession when he emailed Bharti and Davidheiser on October 19,
2018. Teller further asserted Bharti and Davidheiser included
Teller's billing records in their request for $800,000. Teller
asked the trial court not to limit his award to the total billings
included in that request, $24,316.78, because Bharti agreed to
provide Teller 12 percent of the total contingent attorney fee.
Instead, Teller argued Bharti owed him $96,000 (12 percent of
$800,000) under the terms of the Bharti/Teller Agreement.
Mr. Bharti filed a reply alleging that the Bharti/Teller Agreement
was predicated on Teller's full participation in the case, that
Teller should have known Bharti's assurances to pay Teller were
only for the reasonable number of hours Teller worked, that Teller
could not recover a fee where the trial court did not appoint him
as class counsel, that the Bharti/Teller Agreement violated RPC 1.5
and was unenforceable, and that Teller could not assert a lien
under RCW 60.40.010. Neither party requested an evidentiary hearing
nor challenged the trial court's authority to resolve the matter as
presented.
On September 16, 2019, the trial court issued an order
"adjudicating attorney fee lien dispute on Bharti's motion
regarding distribution of approved attorneys' fees." It found
Bharti assured Teller twice that he would honor the Bharti/Teller
Agreement and Teller twice relied on Bharti's assurances. The trial
court also found Bharti relied on Teller's declaration and time
records in Bharti's motion to approve fees. The trial court found
Teller's request for $96,000 to be reasonable under RPC 1.5(a).
On September 20, 2019, Teller submitted a declaration requesting
prejudgment interest for the disbursement delay. Bharti objected to
the request for prejudgment interest and moved for reconsideration
of the trial court's September 16, 2019 order. In his motion for
reconsideration, Bharti, for the first time, argued Teller should
not recover any fees, or in the alternative, only $17,500 because
Kayshel fired Teller from the class case. Teller replied that
Bharti had not yet disbursed payment and failed to identify
specific reasons for reconsideration under Civil Rule (CR) 59(b)
and improperly presented new evidence.
The trial court entered judgment against Bharti, awarded Teller
$6,720 in prejudgment interest and $200 in attorney fees, and
denied the motion to reconsider. Bharti appeals the order
adjudicating the lien dispute, the judgment against Bharti, and the
order denying reconsideration.
Mr. Bharti argues the trial court erred by concluding the
Bharti/Teller Agreement was enforceable under RPC 1.5(e)(1). The
Appellate Court agrees.
Mr. Teller argues RPC 1.5(e)(1)(ii) did not require Kayshel to
actually sign the Bharti/Teller Agreement because Kayshel signed
the Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement that acknowledged Bharti was
going to share his fee with Teller. The Appellate Court agrees with
Teller that the "agreement confirmed in writing" does not require
the client to physically sign the Bharti/Teller Agreement, though
that would be preferred for obvious reasons. However, there must be
something in writing that conveys the client actually is aware of
and agrees to the terms of the fee division agreement.
Contrary to what Teller argues, the Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement
merely suggests any fees Teller receives are to come from Bharti's
share. It does not reference the Bharti/Teller Agreement. It also
does not reference the share Teller would receive from Bharti's 35
percent of the contingency fee.
Mr. Bharti argues thw case is analogous to Belli v. Shaw, 98 Wn.2d
569, 657 P.2d 315 (1983). In Belli, the client hired attorney
Belli, who recommended the client associate with attorney Tonkoff.
Belli, Tonkoff, and the client entered into a contingency fee
agreement in which the attorneys would split the attorney fees
equally. Later, Tonkoff associated with attorney Goldstein, and the
client entered into a new contingency fee agreement with Tonkoff
and Goldstein excluding Belli. The Supreme Court of Washington
considered the subsequent contract a direct repudiation of the
contract with Belli and a termination of Belli's employment. Belli
asked the Supreme Court to award him fees based on a "forwarding
fee" agreement between Belli and Tonkoff. The Court denied the
request because the forwarding fee agreement violated the client
consent and disclosure requirements provided by RPC 1.5(e)'s
predecessor, the Model Code of Professional Responsibility
Disciplinary Rule (DR) 2-107.5 Id. at 577-78. Because Belli and
Tonkoff did not obtain the client's consent for the forwarding fee
agreement, that agreement violated DR 2-107(A)(1), and therefore
violated public policy and was unenforceable.
Judge Linda Coburn, writing for the Panel, holds that Bharti is
correct that Belli is analogous as to this issue. Nothing in the
record supports a finding that Kayshel agreed in writing to the
Bharti/Teller Agreement despite Bharti's assurances that he would
obtain Kayshel's agreement in writing, Judge Coburn finds. Thus,
the Bharti/Teller Agreement violates public policy, is
unenforceable as a matter of law, and cannot be the trial court's
basis for determining what fees to award Teller.
However, Judge Coburn holds, unlike in Belli where Tonkoff,
Goldstein, and the client entered into a new contingency fee
agreement completely excluding Belli, here, Kayshel approved in
writing the Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement that would award Teller
fees out of Bharti's 35 percent of the contingency award. It is for
the trial court to determine what that provision of the
Bharti/Friedman Rubin Agreement allows.
The Appellate Court reverses and remands to the trial court to
consider the parties' legal theories and evidence in determining an
equitable resolution in light of the Panel's ruling.
MANN, C.J. and DWYER, J., concurs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 12, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2pch7mch from Leagle.com.
Patrick L. Vail , Patrick L. Vail, PLLC, at 1000 2nd Ave., Ste.
1770, in Seattle, Washington 98104-1046; Philip Albert Talmadge --
phil@tal-fitzlaw.com -- Talmadge/Fitzpatrick, at 2775 Harbor Ave.
Sw, Third Floor Ste. C, in Seattle, Washington 98126-2138; Gary
Manca -- gary@tal-fitzlaw.com -- Talmadge/Fitzpatrick, at 2775
Harbor Ave. Sw, Third Floor, Suite C, in Seattle, Washington 98126,
Counsel for Appellant(s).
Laura Therese Morse -- laura.morse@jmblawyers.com -- Jensen Morse
Baker PLLC, at 1809 7th Ave., Suite 410, in Seattle, Washington
98101-4403; Erin M. Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Rudy
Albert Englund -- englundr@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, at
1420 5th Ave., Suite 4200, in Seattle, Washington 98101-2375;
Aaron Paul Brecher -- abrecher@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, at 701 5th Ave., Suite 5600, in Seattle, Washington
98104-7045, Counsel for Defendant(s).
Stephen A. Teller, Teller & Associates, at 1139 34th Ave., Suite B,
in Seattle, Washington 98122-5119; Sidney Charlotte Tribe --
tribe@carneylaw.com -- Carney Badley Spellman, at 701 5th Ave.,
Suite 3600, in Seattle, Washington 98104-7010, Counsel for
Respondent(s).
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Walsh Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Due to COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN WALSH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, Case No.
30-2021-01191491-CU-BC-CXC-ROA (Calif. Super., Orange Cty., March
24, 2021) is a class action brought on behalf of all people who
paid tuition and fees, either directly or through a third party
paying on their behalf, for in-person undergraduate or graduate
programs at Chapman, and who have been unable to receive the
benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services
for which their fees were paid, since the campus effectively shut
down March 12, 2020 and moved classes on-line as part of Chapman's
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This is a class action brought under state law for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment. While the effects of the COVID-19
crisis are shared by all individuals and institutions across the
country, Chapman has allegedly failed to apportion the burden in an
equitable manner or consistent with its obligations as an
educational institution. Instead of providing the in-person classes
and educational experience promised, Chapman ceased all instruction
for some courses, and taught others exclusively online, the
Plaintiff contends. Nonetheless, Chapman has retained all tuition,
fees, and related payments for these classes, and plans to do so
for similar online classes in the coming course terms, the suit
adds.
As a result of Chapman's alleged unilateral policy changes,
Plaintiff has not received the educational services, access to
facilities, and/or related opportunities for which Plaintiff and
the putative class contracted and paid.
Prior to its March 11, 2020 announcement that it would "suspend
in-person classes and begin transitioning to online platforms,"
Chapman offered online education for only some courses in only some
schools, and typically charged far less for such services as
compared to in-person instruction. This is due to the inability of
online classes to replicate the full academic opportunities and
experiences of in-person instruction. Remote learning options
cannot replace the comprehensive educational experience promised by
Chapman. Access to facilities, materials, faculty, and the
opportunity for on campus living, school events, collaborative
learning, dialogue, feedback and critique are essential to the
in-person educational experience.
The Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid for the
full experience of academic life on Chapman's campus and remote
online learning cannot provide the same value as in-person
education.
Plaintiff Walsh is a citizen and resident of the State of
California. He has attended Chapman University's Lawrence and
Kristina Dodge College of Film and Media Arts since the Fall 2018
semester, seeking a Master of Fine Art in Film Production for film
direction. Mr. Walsh was enrolled and took classes during the
Spring 2020 and Fall 2020 semesters, and is currently enrolled and
taking classes during the Spring 2021 semester. He paid, either
directly or through a third party paying on his behalf,
approximately $21,270 in tuition to Chapman for the 2020 Spring
term, $22,120 for the 2020 Fall term, and $22,120 for the 2021
Spring term. Each term, the Plaintiff also paid $885 in additional
fees.
Chapman University is a private university comprised of eleven
constituent schools. Chapman had a total enrollment of
approximately 7,656 undergraduate students and 21 over 2,345
graduate students for the 2019-2020 academic year. As of fiscal
year 2019, Chapman reportedly had an endowment of $418
million.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 744-1146
E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Edward H. Skipton, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
eskipton@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN LAW FIRM, LLP
529 - 14th Street, N.W., Suite 914
Washington, DC 20045
Telephone: (866) 298-4150, ext. 101
Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
CHARLES IND: Jenkins Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to C.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Jenkins v. Charles Industries
LLC, Case No. 2021L 000021 (Filed ), was removed from the Circuit
Court of Champaign County to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois (Urbana) on March 24, 2021.
The Central District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-02062-CSB-EIL to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over personal injury claims.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce.
Charles Industries, LLC is a diversified manufacturer serving
telecommunications, broadband cable, wireless and industrial
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl Vincent Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC, Suite 1700
111 W Jackson Blvd
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 391-5059
Facsimile: (312) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Joseph Marchese, Esq.
Philip Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER PA
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Defendant Charles Industries LLC is represented by:
Patrick Robert O'Meara, Esq.
Therese Lenczewski Erickson Meyer, Esq.
Sean G Wieber, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
Suite 4600
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-5600
Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
E-mail: pomeara@winston.com
tericksonmeyer@winston.com
swieber@winston.com
CHEVRON USA: Schnelle Bid for Conditional Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY SCHNELLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00112-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order:
1. denying without prejudice the plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification, so as to allow refiling when
appropriate; and
2. setting a status conference in conformity with Swales under
forthcoming, separate order.
District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi
two-step approach when considering motions for conditional
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Both
Plaintiff's Motion and Defendant's Response are premised on the
application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional
certification.
However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services,
the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. 985 F.3d 430
(5th Cir. 2021). The conditional certification standard articulated
by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to:
[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal
considerations will be material to determining whether a group of
"employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize
preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery
necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but
the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible.
In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi,
should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and
when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QOOFXv at no extra charge.[CC]
COLLECTO INC: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Hopkins FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RANDY HOPKINS, Individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, Appellant v. COLLECTO, INC., dba EOS
CCA; US ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.; JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 20-1955
(3d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
On behalf of US Asset Management, Inc. ("USAM"), Collecto sent a
letter to Randy Hopkins to collect on a debt that Hopkins initially
owed to Verizon but which was later sold to USAM. The letter
itemized Hopkins's debt in the following table:
PRINCIPAL INTEREST COLL COSTS BALANCE
--------- -------- ---------- -------
$1,088.34 $0.00 $0.00 $1,088.34
TOTAL DUE: $1,088.34
The letter concluded that Hopkins owed $1,088.34 on the debt and
offered to "resolve this debt in full" if he paid a reduced amount
of $761.84.
Mr. Hopkins filed a putative class action complaint in the District
of New Jersey against USAM and Collecto (and John Does), alleging
that Collecto's letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"). He claimed that the
debt could not or was not intended to accrue interest or collection
fees. He alleged that by itemizing interest and collection fees for
his "static debt" and by assigning a "$0" value to those columns,
the letter's table falsely implied--in violation of Section 1692e
and Section 1692f of the FDCPA--that interest and fees could accrue
and, thereby, increase the amount of his debt over time.
According to Hopkins, consumers prioritize what debts to pay and,
by suggesting that the debt might accrue interest and fees (when,
in fact, it was static), the Collecto letter gave him the false
impression that the debt needed to be prioritized.
Collecto and USAM moved to dismiss Hopkins's complaint for failure
to state a claim. The District Court dismissed Hopkins's complaint
with prejudice, identifying as the "central issue" whether
"Defendants' inclusion of language stating that the Plaintiff owed
$0 in interest and $0 for fees or collection costs for a static
debt violated the FDCPA."
According to Hopkins, the itemized table in Collecto's letter
denoting "$0" in interest and collection fees falsely implied that
interest and collection fees were materially likely to accrue. And
because the debt was static, Hopkins contends that the letter
violated the FDCPA's prohibition on deceptive (Section 1692e) and
unfair or unconscionable (Section 1692f) means of collecting
consumer debts.
Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith says the Panel is unconvinced for two
reasons. First, recent decisions from other Circuits are to the
contrary. This Court's is not the first court to be confronted with
a claim similar to Hopkins's. For example, in Degroot v. Client
Services, Inc., 977 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2020), the Seventh Circuit
held that a debt collection letter spoke only about the past and,
thus, was not misleading about the future when it listed a debt as
including $0.00 in interest and fees.
Second, Judge Smith opines that the Appellate Court would affirm
dismissal even if confined to least-sophisticated-debtor case law.
If, in applying the least sophisticated debtor standard, the
Appellate Court was constrained to focus on a hypothetical debtor
even less savvy than the "unsophisticated debtor," the Panel would
still affirm the District Court's dismissal of Hopkins's complaint.
The least sophisticated debtor of the Appellate Court's case law,
though gullible, does not subscribe to "bizarre or idiosyncratic
interpretations of collection notices," the Judge points out,
citing Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350, 354-55 (3d Cir.
2000).
Based on the identity of standards, the District Court justifiably
relied on the reasoning of Second Circuit decisions to dismiss
Hopkins's complaint, Judge Smith holds. He adds that were the
Appellate Court for some reason constrained to consider only the
law of Circuits that employ the word "least" in their FDCPA
standards, the Appellate Court would still affirm.
Conclusion
Mr. Hopkins's complaint fails to state a claim, whether this
Court's "least sophisticated debtor" standard is functionally the
same as the "unsophisticated debtor" standard applied by other
Circuits or is instead an independent and less demanding framework,
Judge Smith rules. The Appellate Court will affirm the District
Court's dismissal of Hopkins's complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 12, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mwe8r4jn from Leagle.com.
Yongmoon Kim, Evan W. Lehrer, Philip D. Stern, THE KIM LAW FIRM
LLC, in Hackensack, New Jersey, Counsel for Appellant.
Lawrence J. Bartel -- lbartel@grsm.com -- Andrew M. Schwartz --
amschwartz@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Counsel for Appellees.
Derick K. Sohn, Jr., CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, in
Washington, D.C., Counsel for Amicus Appellee.
CREDIT SUISSE: Retirement System Sues Over 33% Drop of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, THOMAS GOTTSTEIN, LARA J. WARNER and DAVID
R. MATHERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03385 (S.D.N.Y., April 16,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding Credit Suisse's business metrics and financial
prospects to attract investors to acquire Credit Suisse American
Depositary Receipts (ADRs) at artificially inflated prices between
October 29, 2020 and March 31, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants
concealed material defects in the company's risk policies and
procedures and compliance oversight functions and efforts to allow
high-risk clients to take on excessive leverage, including
Greensill Capital and Archegos Capital Management, exposing Credit
Suisse to billions of dollars in losses. When the truth emerged,
the price of Credit Suisse ADRs collapsed from a close of $14.70
per ADR on March 1, 2021 to just $12.85 per ADR by market close on
March 12, 2021, on unusually high volume, a decline of almost 13%.
The market price fell another nearly 20%, declining from their
close of $13.21 per ADR on March 25, 2021 to close at $10.60 per
ADR on March 31, 2021, on unusually high volume, says the suit.
Credit Suisse Group AG is a global wealth manager, investment bank
and financial services firm based in Switzerland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
- 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
- and –
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
CREDIT UNION: Faces Baylor-Baker Over Overdraft Fees in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA BAYLOR-BAKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CREDIT UNION OF NEW JERSEY, Case No.
3:21-cv-06954-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., March 26, 2021) is a civil action
seeking monetary damages and restitution from CUNJ, arising from
its practices of assessing "overdraft fees" to consumer deposit
accounts that were never even overdrawn.
According to the complaint, besides being deceptive, unfair and
unconscionable, these practices breach contractual promises that
CUNJ made to all accountholders -- namely, that it would charge OD
Fees only as a result of transactions that actually overdraw an
account. In plain, clear, and simple language, the contractual
checking account documents promise that CUNJ will only charge an OD
Fee on a transaction where "the available funds in CUNJ refers to
its overdraft fees as "Courtesy Pay Fees" in account statements
when your share or deposit account are not sufficient to pay the
full amount of a check, draft, transaction, or other item, plus any
applicable fee," the suit adds.
Nonetheless, as what happened to Plaintiff, CUNJ regularly charges
OD Fees to its consumer deposit accounts even where they are not
overdrawn. Specifically, Plaintiff was repeatedly charged OD Fees
on routine transactions, even though, according to the monthly
account statements prepared by CUNJ, her account balance never went
into the negative for the supposed overdraft event. By definition,
then, there were always funds to pay the full amount of those
transactions -- yet CUNJ assessed an OD Fee on them anyway, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff and numerous other CUNJ customers have suffered
monetary damages from CUNJ's practices. On behalf of herself and
the putative classes, Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and
injunctive relief for CUNJ's breach of contract.
CUNJ is a Credit Union with its principal place of business in
Ewing, New Jersey. Among other things, CUNJ is engaged in the
business of providing retail banking services to consumers,
including Plaintiff and members of the putative class and subclass,
throughout multiple states.
CUNJ issues debit cards to its checking account customers,
including Plaintiff, which allow its customers to have electronic
access to their checking accounts for purchases, payments,
withdrawals and other electronic debit transactions.
Pursuant to its standard account agreement, CUNJ charges OD Fees
(currently in the amount of $30.00 each) for debit card and other
types of transactions that purportedly result in an overdraft of a
personal checking account.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
jmarchese@bursor.com
CRYSTAL ROOM: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Juca Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BOLIVAR JUCA, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRYSTAL ROOM, L.P. d/b/a BLUE
RIBBON BRASSERIE, BRUCE BROMBERG, and ERIC BROMBERG, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02855 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021) arises from the
Defendants alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
1993 until March 13, 2020 as a sauce preparer.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was working approximately
54 hours per week throughout his employment with the Defendants.
Regardless of the exact number of hours he worked in a given week,
the Plaintiff received a fixed weekly salary of %700 in cash during
2015, 2016 and 2017, and $959 in cash during 2018, 2019 and 2020.
As a result, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff an amount
at least equal to the New York City minimum wage in effect during
relevant time periods, and failed to pay him any overtime "bonus"
at the applicable overtime rate for hours he worked beyond 40 hours
in a workweek, the suit says.
Moreover, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff
with a written notice providing the information required by the
Wage Theft Prevention act, as well as with weekly records of his
compensation and hours worked.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees to recover
from the Defendants all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and costs and disbursements of the action, and other relief
as the Court deems juts and proper.
Crystal Room, L.P. operates an American restaurant "Blue Ribbon
Brasserie" that is owned by the Individual Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@samuellandstein.com
CUMBERLAND FARMS: Pincus et al. Sue Over Non-Compliance of FACTA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEVEN J. PINCUS and VALERIE WILLIAMSON, individually and
on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-006771 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., April 2, 2021), arises
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate
Transactions Act (FACTA) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting.
The Plaintiffs allege that when they visited the Defendant's store
and made a purchase using their personal credit and debit card, the
Defendants provided them an electronically printed receipt at the
point of sale bearing the first 6 and last 4 digits of their
sixteen-digit credit card account number. The Plaintiffs assert
that by unlawfully printing their first 6 digits of their credit
and debit card, the Defendant have invaded their privacy by
disclosing their private financial information to anyone who might
come in contact with the receipt.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated customers have suffered
injuries. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, and other
relief as the Court deems proper under the circumstances.
Cumberland Farms, Inc. operates convenience stores. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A
Hollywood, FL 33020
Tel: (954) 589-0588
Fax: (954) 337-0666
E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
- and –
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel (Direct): (312) 374-3403
Tel (Main): (312) 726-1092
Fax: (312) 726-1093
E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
- and –
Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 302
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (954) 454-5841
Fax: (954) 454-5844
E-mail: blusskin@LusskinLaw.com
DANIELLA'S ALF: Perez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLADYS PEREZ v. DANIELLA'S ALF LLC, d/b/a DANIELLA'S LIFE ALF,
DAMARIS BALLESTER, and ALEX ALMAGUER, individually, Case No.
8:21-cv-00714-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2021) is an action to
recover money damages for unpaid, minimum wages, overtime hours,
and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Gladys Perez was a resident of Hillsborough County,
Florida. The Plaintiff is a covered employee for
purposes of the Act.
Daniella's ALF is an Assisted Living Facility that provides room,
board, personal, and healthcare services to the elderly and infirm.
The individual Defendants Damaris Ballester and Alex Almaguer were
and are now owners/partners/officers/and managers of Daniella's
ALF.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
Florida Bar No.: 0024031
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
DAVITA INC: Settlement in POAB Fund Securities Suit Has Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEACE OFFICERS' ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF GEORGIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
JACKSONVILLE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAVITA
INC.; KENT J. THIRY; JAMES K. HILGER; and JAVIER J. RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-0304-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), Judge
William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado granted the Lead Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation.
Lead Plaintiffs Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia
and the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund sued the
Defendants for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) &
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.
The Lead Plaintiffs filed the securities class action on Feb. 1,
2017. In their Amended Complaint, they allege that throughout the
Class Period, which is Feb. 26, 2015 and Oct. 6, 2017, the
Defendants violated federal securities laws -- specifically,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) & 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 -- by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
Defendants' alleged scheme to "steer" all patients eligible for
and/or enrolled in Medicare and/or Medicaid away from government
plans and into high-cost commercial insurance so DaVita could
obtain higher dialysis reimbursement rates.
The Lead Plaintiffs, who are both pension systems or funds,
purchased DaVita common stock during the Class Period and allege
they suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions.
On March 27, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and
12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"). On March 28, 2019, the Court issued an order denying
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Lead Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint; in that Order, the Court sustained only five out of the
27 alleged misstatements in the case; held that the Lead
Plaintiffs' ability to establish the falsity of the remaining 22
misstatements was "premised on the impropriety or illegality of
DaVita's relationship with the American Kidney Fund"; and reserved
judgment on whether the Amended Complaint "adequately pled the
falsity of these statements."
Subsequently, on Feb. 27, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration seeking the dismissal of the remaining statements,
arguing that the PSLRA requires plaintiffs asserting securities
claims premised on illegal conduct to plead the underlying illegal
conduct with specificity, and that the DOJ's decision to decline to
intervene in the related qui tam case against DaVita "negated the
sole basis for the Plaintiffs' claim of illegality.
On Sept. 18, 2020, shortly after the motion for reconsideration was
fully briefed and the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
was almost fully briefed, but before the Court ruled on those
motions, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. To reach the
settlement, the parties participated in six mediations with former
United States District Judge Layn R. Phillips.
On Oct. 27, 2020, the Court granted the motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement. As part of the
Preliminary Approval Order, the Court certified a class for
settlement purposes only, defined as "All persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired DaVita common stock during the
period between Feb. 26, 2015 and Oct. 6, 2017, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby." The Court also approved the parties' proposed
notice, claim form, and summary notice. The settlement includes a
cy pres provision, which the Court also approved. Finally, the
Court set a Settlement Fairness Hearing for March 30, 2021.
On Feb. 23, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Final Approval
Motion and Fee Motion. Both motions are unopposed, and no
objections or opposition to either motion were filed with the
Court.
In a declaration recently filed with the Court, the third-party
class action administrator ("Epiq") represents that through March
22, 2021, a total of 137,901 notice packets were mailed to
potential settlement class members and nominees. Through March 22,
2021, Epiq has received 14,783 claims; approximately 12,011 claims
were filed electronically by or on behalf of institutions, and
2,772 claims were submitted by or on behalf of individuals. The
March 20, 2021 claim filing deadline has passed, and Epiq will
continue to accept and process claims received after the filing
deadline. To the extent that these claims are deemed eligible and
their acceptance will not delay distribution of the net settlement
fund, the Lead Counsel will present these late but otherwise
eligible claims for Court approval when Lead Counsel moves the
Court to distribute the net settlement fund to settlement class
members.
Epiq has also maintained a settlement website and a toll-free
number to respond to inquiries from settlement class members. As
of Feb. 16, 2021, the deadline for objections or exclusions from
the settlement class members, Epiq received no objections and only
one valid request for exclusion, representing the
purchase/acquisition of 1,425 shares of DaVita common stock, which
Lead Plaintiffs state is a de minimis amount of stock.
Additionally, as of Feb. 22, 2021, Epiq has not received or been
informed of any objection by any settlement class member to any
aspect of the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses.
Judge Martinez held a Settlement Fairness Hearing on March 30,
2021. No objectors appeared at the hearing, and to date, neither
the Court nor Epiq have received any objection to the settlement
from any class member. At the Settlement Fairness Hearing, the
Judge issued an oral ruling granting the Final Approval Motion and
taking under advisement the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. He noted
at the conclusion of the hearing that the written order would issue
in order to fully state the reasons for his decision.
Having thoroughly reviewed the Final Approval Motion and the
Settlement Agreement in the context of both the Tenth Circuit's
factors and the factors set forth in Rule 23, Judge Martinez finds
that the settlement negotiated by counsel is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. He finds that the parties have demonstrated that the
Settlement Agreement was fairly and honestly negotiated at arms'
length and in good faith by counsel experienced in these types of
cases. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion between the
parties. Further, the Judge finds that the value of the Settlement
Agreement outweighs the possibility of recovery after protracted
litigation.
Based on these considerations, Judge Martinez approves the Plan of
Allocation, grants final certification to the settlement class
under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3), and finds good cause to order final
approval of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the
parties to the action.
Under the Settlement Agreement, "at such time as it is determined
that the re-distribution of funds remaining in the Net Settlement
Fund is not cost-effective, the remaining balance will be
contributed to non-sectarian, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
organization(s), to be recommended by Lead Counsel and approved by
the Court." Based on their prior experience, the Lead Plaintiffs
anticipate that any cy pres award in the case will range from $0 to
$30,000.
In the Lead Plaintiffs' Supplement to Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, the parties suggest three cy
pres recipients. First, they propose the Children's Hospital
Colorado Foundation, which supports the region's only nonprofit
pediatric hospital, Children's Hospital Colorado. The Children's
Hospital Colorado treats pediatric end-stage kidney disease and
provides pediatric kidney transplants through the Kidney Center's
Kidney Transplant Program. Next, the parties propose the Investor
Protection Trust, which is a nonprofit organization devoted to
investor education. The primary mission of this organization is to
provide independent, objective information needed by consumers to
make informed investment decisions. Finally, the parties propose
the Legal Aid Foundation of Colorado, which promotes equal access
to justice by raising funds to provide civil legal services for
low-income people in Colorado.
Upon due consideration, Judge Martinez finds that any of the three
suggested beneficiaries is appropriate. The Lead Plaintiffs may
choose the manner in which they allocate the balance of the
settlement fund among the Children's Hospital Colorado Foundation,
the Investor Protection Trust, and the Legal Aid Foundation of
Colorado. Given the nature and objectives of the lawsuit, the
Judge finds that the cy pres award is appropriate and the next best
use of funds to provide an indirect class benefit for the class
members.
Lastly, the parties propose that the Lead Plaintiffs will each
receive $10,000 as an "award of reasonable costs and expenses
(including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of
the class" -- awards that are specifically envisioned in the PSLRA
and routinely awarded by courts nationwide.
Judge Martinez holds that the Lead Plaintiffs devoted considerable
time and effort in actively supervising the litigation over a
multi-year period, including by collecting and producing numerous
documents and responding to interrogatories; preparing for and
attending their depositions; and participating in ongoing
settlement discussions. Further, they have been fully committed to
pursuing the interests of the settlement class and have actively
and effectively complied with the many demands that arose during
the litigation. The Judge finds that their efforts warrant
reimbursement. For these reasons, he approves a reimbursement
award of $10,000 for each of the Lead Plaintiffs.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Martinez grants the Lead Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of
Allocation. The Settlement Agreement is approved.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/d7j78az3 from Leagle.com.
DESIGNED METAL: Guevara Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REIN A GUEVARA, as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. DESIGNED METAL CONNECTIONS, INC. dba
PERMASWAGE USA, PRECISION CASTPARTS CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV11337 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 24, 2021) asserts claims against the Defendants for recovery
of unpaid minimum wage and overtime and failure to provide meal
periods in violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act, Labor
Code.
The Aggrieved Employees consists of all non-exempt employees
employed by or formerly employed by the Defendants within the state
of California who were not subject to a collective bargaining
agreement at any time during the relevant statutory period, and
were California citizens at the time of the filing of this
complaint.
Designed Metal is located in Gardena, California, and is part of
the Aerospace Products and Parts Manufacturing Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Michael A. Swift, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
mswift@mahoncy-law.net
DIAMONDBACK E&P: Foundation Sues Over Underpayment of Gas Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COOK CHILDREN'S HEALTH FOUNDATION a/k/a W.I. COOK FOUNDATION, INC.,
on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. DIAMONDBACK E&P LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00359-D (W.D. Okla., April 16, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of lease.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to comply with its
express duties under the leases to pay royalties to the Plaintiff
and Class members for natural gas used off the lease premises. The
Defendant concealed the systematic underpayment of royalty from the
Plaintiff and Class members by falsely representing on the check
stubs provided monthly to them that the Defendant was paying
royalty on the full volume and value of production from their
wells, when in fact, it was not, the suit says.
Cook Children's Health Foundation, also known as W.I. Cook
Foundation, Inc., is a charity organization located in Fort Worth,
Texas.
Diamondback E&P LLC is an oil and natural gas company, with its
principal place of business located at 515 Central Park Drive,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael E. Grant, Esq.
GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
At the Midtown Law Center
512 Northwest 12th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73103-2407
Telephone: (405) 232-6357
Facsimile: (405) 232-6358
E-mail: de1471@coxinet.net
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Marhefka Files Class Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARHEFKA, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated v. DICKEY'S BARBECUE RESTAURANTS, INC., a Texas
corporation, Case 3:21-cv-00585-GPC-AGS, (April 5, 2021, S.D. Cal.)
is a class action against Defendant for its failure to exercise
reasonable care in securing and safeguarding its customers'
personal identifying information (PII), including names, payment
card numbers, payment card expiration dates, and payment card
security codes.
On October 15, 2020, a daily blog that covers computer security and
cybercrime, KrebsOnSecurity.com, revealed that payment card data
had been stolen from Defendant's customers at more than 100 of
Defendant's restaurant locations around the country.
Plaintiff Marhefka is a citizen of the State of California and
resides in West Covina, California.
Defendant Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. is a Texas
corporation that operates a chain of corporate and franchise
restaurants known as Dickey's Barbecue Pit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
jrobinson@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
DISCOUNT DEALS: Faces Guzman Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIRNA DIAZ GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOUNT DEALS 1 INC., and IRFAN
MUHAMMAD, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01810-ENV-SJB (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action to recover damages from the
Defendants for their alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from in or around March
2006 until in or around January 2021 as a stocker and cleaner. The
Plaintiff's primary duties were stocking supplies, cleaning, and
performing other miscellaneous duties.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not pay her and other
similarly situated employees their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay despite working approximately 60 or more hours per week
during his employment with the Defendants. The Defendants also
failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements, and failed to keep accurate payroll records as
required by both NYLL and the FLSA, the Plaintiff adds.
On behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages, as
well as pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies as the
Court deems appropriate.
Discount Deals 1 Inc. operates a store owned by Irfan Muhammad.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
EAGLE FOODS: Remand of Gates Suit to Lake County Cir. Ct. Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY GATES, Plaintiff v. EAGLE FOODS GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20 C 6525 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge Alonso of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
action to the Circuit Court of Lake County.
On July 27, 2020, Gates filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County a
lawsuit alleging that the Defendant violated Illinois' Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. The
Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendant from October to
December of 2016 and in February of 2018. During those times, the
Defendant required the Plaintiff to "scan his handprint each time
he began and ended his workday, as well as each time he clocked in
and out for breaks."
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of at least fifty
individuals. In Count I, he asserts that defendant violated BIPA
by failing to publish retention schedules for biometric information
and by failing to destroy the biometric data. On that claim, he
seeks, among other things, "$5,000 for each intentional and/or
reckless violation of BIPA." In Count II, the Plaintiff alleges
the Defendant "systematically and automatically" collected
biometric information "without first obtaining the written release
required by 740 ILCS Section 14/15(b)(3)." With respect to Count
II, the Plaintiff seeks $5,000 per intentional or reckless
violation. In Count III, the Plaintiff asserts the Defendant
"systematically and automatically" disclosed biometric information
"without first obtaining" consent. For that, he seeks relief of,
among other things, $5,000 for each intentional or reckless
violation.
On Nov. 3, 2020, the Defendant removed the case to the Court,
citing the Class Action Fairness Act. It attached to its notice of
removal a copy of the proof of service, which states that it was
served on Aug. 13, 2020. In its notice of removal, the Defendant
states that the Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois, while the
Defendant is a citizen of Delaware (under whose laws it is
organized) and Ohio (the location of its principal place of
business). It asserts that the purported class contains several
hundreds of persons and that the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for remand. He argues
that the Defendant's notice of removal was untimely and that the
case does not meet the requirements of the CAFA.
Judge Alonso agrees with the Defendant that the original complaint
did not affirmatively and unambiguously reveal the predicates for
removal. First, the Plaintiff's complaint did not specifically
disclose the amount in controversy. In his complaint, the
Plaintiff demanded $5,000 per violation, but it is not clear how
many violations he alleges. Second, the Plaintiff does not reveal
in his complaint that the class size is large enough to fall within
CAFA. He alleges at least 50 members, but CAFA requires 100. In
other words, the complaint left work for the Defendant to do to
determine whether the case was removable. The Plaintiff admits as
much by noting dthe Defendant "is the sole party in possession of
the exact class size." Neither 30-day deadline under Section 1446
commenced, so the notice of removal was timely.
Judge Alonso also agrees with the Defendant that the damages per
Plaintiff are not necessarily limited to $15,000. As the Defendant
points out, the Plaintiff alleges that he used a handprint to scan
in and out of work each day, as well as on breaks. Furthermore, as
the Court recognized in a different case, the "law is not clear
whether, under BIPA, a plaintiff can recover for every fingerprint
scan." If each class member worked even one day, then it is
legally possible for the amount in controversy to exceed $5
million. Accordingly, the Judge holds that the Court has
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The case was
removable.
Finally, the Judge Alonso finds that the Plaintiff has not shown
that the Court must decline to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA.
First, the Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion on this point.
Second, even if he had more than his own speculation to show the
citizenship of class members, that would not be legally sufficient
to show that the case falls within either the
home-state-controversy or the local-controversy exceptions to CAFA.
The only Defendant in the case is a citizen of Delaware and Ohio,
so Section 1332(d)(4)(B) does not apply.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Alonso denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand. The Plaintiff's motion to stay the case pending
resolution of the motion for remand is granted. The Plaintiff's
response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss is due May 3, 2021.
The Defendant's reply is due May 17, 2021. No further extensions
will be granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/zaxf8vah from
Leagle.com.
EEBI TRANS: Monterroza Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Monterroza, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. EEBI Transportation Corp, P.C. Richard & Son,
LLC, and Gerardo A. Martinez, Case No. 2:21-cv-01605 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 25, 2021) asserts claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law that the Plaintiff and the class are
entitled to including compensation for wages paid at less than the
statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime
work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as
required by law, and liquidated damages.
Plaintiff Monterroza is an adult individual residing in Freeport,
New York. Mr. Monterroza consents in writing to be a party to this
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); his written consent
was previously filed.
EEBI is a domestic corporation organized under the law of the State
of New York. EEBI owns and operates a delivery truck service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com
EMPOWER FEDERAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Wellington Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York denied Empower's motion to dismiss the case,
DANIELLE WELLINGTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. EMPOWER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and
DOES 1 through 5, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-CV-1367 (N.D.N.Y.).
On Nov. 4, 2020, Plaintiff Wellington, an accountholder at
Defendant Empower, filed the putative class action against Empower
and Jane Does 1 through 5. According to the Plaintiff's two-count
class complaint, the Defendants violated certain disclosure
requirements governing bank overdraft fees.
In August of 2019, Wellington opened a checking account with
Empower, a credit union headquartered in Syracuse, New York. As
part of her enrollment, the Plaintiff "opted in" to a service
called "Courtesy Pay," which is Empower's overdraft program for
one-time debit card and ATM transactions.
Under the Courtesy Pay program, Empower automatically pays for a
transaction using its own funds when the transaction would cause a
customer's account to be overdrawn, or where the customer's account
lacks sufficient funds. In exchange for this service, Empower
charges a $35 "overdraft" fee. A customer is allowed to make up to
five of these overdraft transactions per day.
The median debit card transaction that leads to an overdraft fee is
$24, which, on average, is repaid within three days. Thus, put in
lending terms, this kind of small, short-term loan would carry a
17,000% annual percentage rate ("APR"). These fees generate a
significant amount of revenue for banks and credit unions. For
example, in 2019 Empower collected $18 million in income from these
fees.
According to Wellington, these fees also amount to "very expensive
credit that harms the poorest customers and creates substantial
profit to the financial institution." As the Plaintiff explains,
the people most likely to overdraw their checking accounts tend to
belong to marginalized groups. They tend to be people of color:
non-whites are 83% more likely to pay an overdraft fee than whites.
They tend to be low-income: More than 50% of accountholders
assessed overdraft fees earned under $40,000 a year. And they tend
to be young: A 25-year old is 133% more likely to pay an overdraft
penalty than a 65-year old.
To combat this issue, the Federal Reserve, which has regulatory
oversight over financial institutions, amended Regulation E to
require financial institutions to obtain affirmative consent from
accountholders (i.e., to require them to "opt-in") before assessing
any overdraft fees on certain debit card transactions. As amended,
Regulation E also prevents financial institutions from assessing
NSF fees on accountholders who do not provide affirmative consent,
as the denial of a transaction means that no transaction has taken
place and thus there is no transaction to return unpaid.
To be valid under Regulation E, a financial institution's opt-in
agreement for overdraft or NSF fees must be a stand-alone document
that accurately discloses the overdraft policies in a "clear and
readily understandable manner." And the burden is on the financial
institution to establish that the accountholder opted-in to
overdraft coverage through a written agreement or a confirmation
letter.
Regulation E also requires financial institutions to inform
accountholders who opt-in whether the overdraft or NSF fees will be
based on the "actual balance" or "available balance" in the
customer's account. An "actual balance" (sometimes called a
"ledger balance" or "current balance") is the actual amount of
money in a customer's account at any particular time. In
contrast, an "available balance" is a financial industry term that
is calculated as the customer's actual balance reduced "by the
amount the bank or credit union has either held from deposits or
held from the account because of authorized debit transactions that
have not yet come in (and may never come in) for payment."
On Sept. 7, 2020, Empower assessed an overdraft fee on Wellington's
bank account in connection with a debit card transaction. The
Plaintiff alleges that Empower's "Courtesy Pay" program violates
Regulation E because the credit union's written opt-in agreement
fails to clearly disclose that the credit union uses the "available
balance" metric to assess overdraft fees. Because Empower "used an
identical opt-in agreement with the Plaintiff and all putative
class members," the Plaintiff seeks to vindicate the rights of a
class of accountholders who were improperly assessed one or more of
these overdraft fees.
Wellington's class complaint asserts a claim under the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA") based on Empower's alleged violation of
Regulation E's so-called "Opt In Rule." He also asserts a claim
under New York General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349 based on
the allegedly deceptive and misleading statements in Empower's
opt-in disclosure agreement.
On Feb. 2, 2021, Empower moved under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint.
Judge Hurd holds that at this point in the proceedings, the Court
has neither the ability nor the authority to determine which
Membership Agreement is the proper one, or even whether the
Regulation E language belongs in the agreement or elsewhere.
Accordingly, Empower's various exhibits will not be considered in
resolving its motion.
Empower contends that Wellington's EFTA claim based on a violation
of Regulation E fails because "Empower FCU's Courtesy Pay opt-in
language tracks the A-9 Model Consent Form for Overdraft Services,
which was promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB), the agency charged with promulgating regulations to carry
out EFTA's purposes." These arguments rely on consideration of the
extraneous materials that have already been excluded.
However, even assuming that Empower's extraneous evidence should be
considered, Wellington has still plausibly alleged violations of
Regulation E, Judge Hurd holds. He finds that Wellington alleges
that Empower's Courtesy Pay disclosure agreement defines an
overdraft as "when you do not have enough money in your account to
cover a transaction, but we pay it anyway." She further alleges
that the disclosure agreement makes no reference to the term
"available balance" or "actual balance" or any other description of
how the financial institution assesses overdraft fees.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Empower
violated Regulation E by using ambiguous language to describe when
it would assess overdraft fees.
Empower contends that Wellington's GBL Section 349 claims fail
"because Empower FCU's Membership and Account Agreement
unequivocally informed the Plaintiff that overdraft fees are based
on 'available balance.'" In other words, Empower argues that the
Plaintiff has failed to plead that its conduct was misleading in
any material way.
Upon review, Judge Hurd holds that Empower's argument that
Wellington has failed to plausibly allege that Empower's opt-in
notice was misleading in a material way will be rejected. He finds
that to meet the second element of GBL Section 349, the "deceptive
practice 'need not reach the level of common-law fraud to be
actionable,'" citing Kelly v. Community Bank, N.A., 2020 WL 777463,
at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020) (D'Agostino, J.). Nor does a
plaintiff need to establish that Empower intended to defraud or
mislead. Instead, a plaintiff only needs to establish that the
challenged act was dishonest or misleading.
Under prevailing Second Circuit case law, the Judge notes that
allegations that a disclosure agreement's terms were ambiguous or
misleading are sufficient to plausibly allege a claim for relief
under GBL Section 349. Further, the language in Kelly is
strikingly similar to the language that Wellington alleges Empower
utilized in its own disclosure agreement. Notably, instead of
addressing the sufficiency of Wellington's factual allegations,
Empower's argument once again rests entirely on extraneous
documents that the Court has already chosen to exclude from
consideration. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a
claim for relief under GBL Section 349.
For these reasons, Judge Hurd concludes that Wellington has
plausibly alleged that Empower violated Regulation E and GBL
Section 349 by improperly assessing overdraft fees based on her
available balance, contrary to the terms of her disclosure
agreement. Therefore, he denied Empower's motion to dismiss.
Empower will file an answer to the complaint on April 26, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Memorandum Decision
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3t8593zj from
Leagle.com.
McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP, ELAINE KUSEL, ESQ., SHERIEF MORSY, ESQ.
-- sm@mccunewright.com -- in Newark, New Jersey, Attorneys for the
Plaintiff.
McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP, RICHARD DALE McCUNE, JR., ESQ.,
Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Ontario, CA.
GORDON, REES LAW FIRM, PETER G. SIACHOS, ESQ. -- psiachos@grsm.com
-- QING GUO, ESQ. -- qguo@grsm.com -- Attorneys for the
Defendants.
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Dimercurio Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO DIMERCURIO, CHARLES
GAETH, JOHN LANGLITZ, and MALCOLM SYNIGAL on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC dba SHELL
OIL PRODUCTS US, and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No.
3:19-cv-04029-JSC (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the following class and sub-class under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
-- Class
"All Operators working at the refinery of Equilon
Enterprises
LLC dba Shell Oil Products US in Martinez, California at any
time from June 4, 2015, four years prior to the filing of
this complaint, up to and continuing through January 31,
2020;" and
-- Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class
"All Operators who have been employed and separated from
employment (either by involuntary termination or resignation)
at the refinery of Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil
Products US in Martinez, California, at any time from June 4,
2015 through January 31, 2020, and who did not timely receive
all their wages at time of separation."
The Plaintiffs further seek to have certified for resolution on
behalf of this class each of the following claims pled in their
Class Action Complaint:
-- Claim One for failure to pay reporting time pay;
-- Claim Two for failure to pay all wages at termination;
-- Claim Three for failure to provide accurate wage statements;
and
-- Claim Four for violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law.
The Plaintiffs further request the Court designate them as Class
Representatives. The Plaintiffs also seek to have Plaintiffs'
Counsel identified in the above caption appointed as Class Counsel
under 3 Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in
California state court. The Plaintiffs brought a claim for failure
to pay reporting time pay in violation of Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC) Wage Order, and derivative claims for failure to
pay all wages earned at termination in violation of Labor Code
sections 200-203; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements in violation of Labor Code sections 226 and 226.3;
and violations of California's unfair competition law (UCL)
pursuant to Business and Professions Code.
Equilon Enterprises is an oil refining and marketing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 9,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xcRQZT
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
Roberta D. Perkins, Esq.
Alexander s. Nazarov, Esq.
Maximillian D. Casillas, Esq.
Kara L. Gordon, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
1375 55th Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (510) 337-1001
Facsimile:x (510) 337-1023
E-Mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
khillman@unioncounsel.net
jmanansala@unioncounsel.net
rperkins@unioncounsel.net
anazarov@unioncounsel.net
mcasillas@unioncounsel.net
kgordon@unioncounsel.net
- and -
Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
Ddavid Pogrel, Esq.
LEONARD CARDER, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone (510) 272-0169
Facsimile (510) 272-0174
E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
EVENT EFFECTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL M. MORALES, LUIZ R. CARVALHO, MANUEL S. LEON, and other
similarly situated individuals v. EVENT EFFECTS GROUP LLC, and
MITCH AMSTERDAM, individually, Case No. 0:21-cv-60659-RAR (S.D.
Fla., March 25, 2021) contends that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated individuals the proper compensation for every
overtime hour worked at the rate of time and one-half their regular
rate.
This action is intended to include every hourly-paid party rental
employee, supervisors, and similarly situated individuals who
worked for Defendants at any time during the past three years.
The Defendant is a full-service event production and party rental
company specializing in planning and designing significant events.
The Defendant rents lighting, sound equipment, furniture, decor,
and tents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ZANDRO E. PALMA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EVOL NUTRITION: Sleep Walker Contains Unsafe Phenibut, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE WOMACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EVOL NUTRITION ASSOCIATES, INC., doing business as Red
Dawn Energy, a Georgia Corporation, Case No. 6:21-cv-00332-BKS-TWD
(N.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) alleges that the Defendant advertises
its Sleep Walker Products primarily as an energy drink, competing
with coffee and caffeine laden drinks, however, to compete in this
market, Defendant formulated the Products contain unapproved and
unsafe dietary ingredients, whose risk are not adequately
disclosed.
The Defendant manufactures, bottles, markets, distributes, and
retails the Sleep Walker (sold in both liquid and capsule forms)
and Red Dawn Liquid Products (collectively, the Products) as
dietary supplements that provide extra energy and enhances the
consumer's mood.
The Defendant labels the Products as containing a "Proprietary
Blend" or "Proprietary Focus/Mood Blend" which includes, among
other things, the substance Beta-phenyl-gamma-aminobutyric acid
(better known as "Phenibut" or "GABA"). Phenibut is an anti-anxiety
medication prescribed in Russia. Phenibut is associated with
significant side effects, including dizziness, nausea, poor
balance, fatigue, and feelings of electric shocks in the arms and
legs. In larger doses, Phenibut can cause trouble breathing and
unconsciousness. Simply put, Phenibut is a dangerous drug that has
no place being in any food product, says the suit.
Phenibut has never been approved for use as a dietary ingredient
and is not generally recognized as safe by the United States Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA"), despite being used in the
SleepWalker Energy products. This renders the Products misbranded
and adulterated under Federal and State law, added the suit.
Misbranded and adulterated food products cannot legally be
manufactured, held, advertised, distributed or sold. Thus,
misbranded and adulterated food has no economic value and is
worthless as a matter of law, and purchasers of misbranded food are
entitled to a full refund of the purchase price.
Additionally, Plaintiff and other Class Members suffered from a
number of side effects related to the Phenibut, in combination with
the other ingredients, in the Products. The Plaintiff did not know
that the Products contained a dangerous and unapproved ingredient
which would have such negative effects. Had Plaintiff and Class
Members known the true nature of the Products, they would not have
purchased such Products, or would have paid less.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct and
misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and putative Class Members have
suffered injury in fact, including economic damage.
Plaintiff Duane Womack is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a
resident of Rome, New York and a citizen of New York.
Plaintiff Womack has purchased several of Defendant's Sleep Walker
products in the past four years, including at a Speedway store
located in New York on or about June 2020. Womack purchased
Defendant's Sleep Walker products believing it to be a safe, lawful
dietary supplement which would provide an energy boost, similar to
coffee.
EVOL manufactures nutritional supplements and other energy drinks.
EVOL manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes and retails a
line of Red Dawn branded supplements, including the Sleep Walker
and Red Dawn Products, throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jan M. Smolak, Esq.
MICHAELS & SMOLAK, P.C.
17 East Genesee Street, Ste. 401
Auburn, New York 13021
Telephone: (315) 253-3293
Facsimile: (315) 252-6970
E-mail: michaels@michaels-smolak.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
E-mail: tkashima@sommerspc.com
EXPEDIA INC: Court Enters Final Judgment Closing Buckeye Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California enters judgment in the case, BUCKEYE TREE
LODGE AND SEQUOIA VILLAGE INN, LLC, et al., Plaintiff v. EXPEDIA,
INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-04721-VC (N.D. Cal.).
The Court has granted approval of the class-action settlement. The
Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2jrzphs8 from Leagle.com.
FAMOUS PIZZA: Zepeda Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ABEL NOEL ZEPEDA OCHOA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. FAMOUS PIZZA OF JACKSON HEIGHTS CORP. (D/B/A
ELMHURST FAMOUS PIZZA), ELMHURST FAMOUS PIZZA CORP. (D/B/A ELMHURST
FAMOUS PIZZA), and LOUIS ANTONIO, Case No. 1:21-cv-01604 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 25, 2021) seeks to recover for unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Zepeda was ostensibly
employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a
considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to making pizzas, cutting vegetables,
cutting cheese, cutting meats, cooking bacon, preparing sauce,
stocking vegetables and meat, sodas, filling the fridges with soda
and cleaning (the non-tipped duties). He worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Zepeda is a former employee of Defendants Famous Pizza of
Jackson Heights Corp. He was employed as a pizza maker and a part
time delivery worker at both pizzeria locations.
The Defendants own, operate, or control two pizzerias, one is
located at 75-12 37th Ave, Queens, N.Y. 11372 doing business under
the name "Elmhurst Famous Pizza."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
FCA US: Dantzler Suit Removed From State Ct. to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DANTZLER, et al. v. FCA US
LLC, et al., Case No. BER-L-000652 21 was removed from the Superior
Court of Bergen County, New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark) on March 26, 2021.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-06961-MCA-LDW to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from contract-related issues and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.
The Defendants include DAIMLERCHRYSLER SERVICE CONTRACTS, INC.;
STELLANTIS N.V., formerly known as: FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, NV;
FCA HOLDCO B.V.; FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, NV; CHRYSLER SERVICE
CONTRACTS, INC.; CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH OF PARAMUS INC.; CHRYSLER LLC;
DAIMLER CHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICA LLC; MOPAR VEHICLE
PROTECTION; LESTER GLENN AUTO GROUP; JAMES SIMON COONS ANSA
ASSUNCAO, LLP; FCA NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS LLC; ABC CORPORATIONS
1-10 ;and JOHN DOES 1-10.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Barry J. Gainey, Esq.
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
375 ABBOTT ROAD
Paramus, NJ 07652
Telephone: (201) 225-9001
Facsimile: (201) 225-9002
E-mail: bgainey@gme-law.com
FIRST CONNECTICUT: Karp Bid Certify Class Junked as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SELWYN KARP, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FIRST
CONNECTICUT BANCORP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02541-RDB (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Richard D. Bennett entered an order that:
1. The Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, as
publicly redacted is denied;
2. The Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, as
publicly redacted is granted;
3. The Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Appoint
Class Representative and Class Counselis denied as moot;
4. The Defendants' Motion for Other Relief to Exclude the
Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert M. Travis Keath,
as publicly redacted, is denied as moot;
5. Pursuant to Rule 58(a) Judgment is entered in favor of the
Defendants on all counts of the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Complaint;
6. The Clerk of this Court shall close this case and the
consolidated case of Lagace v. First Connecticut Bancorp,
Inc., RDB-18-2541; and
7. The Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this Order
and accompanying Memorandum Opinion to counsel of record.
First Connecticut Bancorp Inc is a bank holding company based in
the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QPO8EI at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST TRANSIT: Woods et al. Seek Bus Drivers' Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WOODS, MIA POSEY, and VINCENT BOCK, for themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00739-PAB (N.D. Ohio, April 6, 2021) is
a collective and class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as full-time,
hourly-paid First Transit fixed-route bus drivers.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant did not compensate them
and other similarly situated bus drivers for the time they spent
performing pre-shift and post-shift work that is integral and
indispensable part of their principal work activities. Moreover,
the Defendant failed to provide them with meal break. Allegedly,
the Defendant avoids paying them overtime compensation at one and
one-half times of their regular rates of pay by allowing them to
experience shortened and missed meal breaks without pay between two
and five times per week, the Plaintiffs add.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has intentionally
violated the FLSA by maintaining common scheduling, timekeeping,
and compensation policies and practices that knowingly deny its
drivers overtime wage payments for overtime pre-shift, post-shift,
and meal break work that the Defendant requires them to perform as
part of their job and for the Defendant's benefit.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful practices, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated bus drivers have been
harmed. Thus, the Plaintiffs bring this complaint to recover unpaid
wages from the Defendant and all available compensatory damages, as
well as pre-judgment interest, liquidated and/or punitive damages,
reasonable attorney's fee and reimbursement of all costs and
expenses, and other equitable and injunctive relief as the Court
deems just, necessary, and proper.
First Transit, Inc. provides public transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 West St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 622-1851
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
bhollowell@karonllc.com
- and –
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: (215) 873-4836
E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- and –
James B Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
FLAGSTAR BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Garcia Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TANIA GARCIA on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Case No. 2:21-cv-10671-AJT-DRG
(E.D. Mich., March 26, 2021) is a class action complaint against
the Flagstar Bank for its failure to properly safeguard personally
identifiable information (PII) that it stored on and/or shared
using its vendor's file sharing platform, including without
limitation, full names, Social Security numbers, residential
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and/or financial account
numbers.
According to its website, the Defendant "has assets of $31.0
billion, is the sixth largest bank mortgage originator nationally,
and the second largest savings bank in the country." Defendant
"operate[s] 150 branches in Michigan, Indiana, California,
Wisconsin, and Ohio and provide a full complement of products and
services for consumers and businesses."
The Defendant's "mortgage division operates nationally through 103
retail locations and a wholesale network of approximately 2,350
third-party mortgage originators." The Defendant is "also a leading
servicer and sub-servicer of mortgage loans -- handling
recordkeeping for $227 billion in home loans."
On January 22, 2021, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized
actor breached Defendant's vendor's file sharing platform, which
Defendant had used to store and/or share the PII of Plaintiff and
Class Members. On March 6, 2021, the Defendant learned that, during
the Data Breach, the actor removed one or more documents that
contained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, including, but
not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, tax ID numbers,
home addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and/or financial
account numbers, the suit says.
Flagstar was aware and had full knowledge that Accellion's data
security on the platform Flagstar used was lax. In fact, prior to
the breach, Accellion encouraged its customers to move to a newer
and more secure transfer platform.
Flagstar did not adequately safeguard Plaintiff's data, and now she
and apparently many other individuals are the victims of a
significant data breach that will negatively affect them for the
rest of their lives, the suit alleges.
Flagstar is responsible for allowing this alleged data breach
through its failure to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards
and its failure to comply with industry-standard data security
practices. Despite its role in managing so much sensitive and
personal information, Flagstar failed to utilize a competent
third-party data transfer company when handling and/or transferring
sensitive PII, and Flagstar chose to use an outdated and unsecure
transfer platform, added the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of implied contract, negligence,
negligent entrustment, bailment, and unjust enrichment, and seeks
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, and all
other relief as authorized in equity or by law.
In late January 2021, Plaintiff received a notice from her Credit
Karma account regarding a potential data breach in January 2021. On
March 22, 2021, Plaintiff learned of the Data Breach and started to
piece together that the Credit Karma alert was related to the
Flagstar Data Breach.
Flagstar Bank is a Michigan-based federally chartered stock savings
bank, headquartered at 5151 Corporate Drive, Troy, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Javier Merino, Esq.
DANN LAW
P.O. Box 6031040
Cleveland, OH 44103
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
jmerino@dannlaw.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
zschaengold@msdlegal.com
FLAGSTAR BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Angus Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP ANGUS and MARK WIEDDER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, a Michigan-based
federally chartered stock savings bank, Case No.
2:21-cv-10657-AJT-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 25, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information that the Defendant stored on and/or shared
using its vendor's file sharing platform, including names, Social
Security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth,
and/or financial account numbers (collectively, "personally
identifiable information' or "PII").
According to its website, Defendant "has assets of $31.0 billion,
is the sixth largest bank mortgage originator nationally, and the
second largest savings bank in the country." Defendant "operate[s]
150 branches in Michigan, Indiana, California, Wisconsin, and Ohio
and provide[s] a full complement of products and services for
consumers and businesses." Its "mortgage division operates
nationally through 103 retail locations and a wholesale network of
approximately 2,350 third-party mortgage originators."
The Defendant's customers entrust Defendant with an extensive
amount of their PII. The Defendant retains this information on
computer hardware -- even after the customer relationship ends. The
Defendant asserts that it understands the importance of protecting
such information.
On January 22, 2021, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized
actor breached Defendant's vendor's file sharing platform, which
the Defendant had used to store and/or share the PII of Plaintiffs
and Class Members (the "Data Breach").
On March 6, 2021, Defendant learned that, during the Data Breach,
the unauthorized actor removed one or more documents that contained
the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members, including, but not limited
to, names, Social Security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers,
dates of birth, and/or financial account numbers.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant disregarded their rights
and Class Members rights by intentionally, willfully, recklessly,
or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure that their PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and
appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use. As the result, the PII
of Plaintiffs and Class Members was compromised through disclosure
to an unknown and unauthorized third party, the Plaintiffs add.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members have a continuing interest in
ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they
should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief.
FSB is a Michigan-based federally chartered stock savings bank,
headquartered at 5151 Corporate Drive, Troy, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
John A. yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (313) 251-1399
E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com
jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
FLOWERS FOODS: Richard Bid for Class Certification Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINE RICHARD, ET. AL.,
v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., ET. AL., Case No. 6:15-cv-02557-SMH-CBW
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Maurice Hicks, Jr. entered an order
1. declining to adopt the Amended Report and Recommendation the
Magistrate Judge Whitehurst;
2. denying the Motion for Class Certification to certify the
class of Plaintiffs under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act;
3. granting the motion for decertification to decertify the
conditional class under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Court relies on the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit decision in Swales, et al. v. KLLM Trans. Serv., LLC, 985
F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021), in reaching its conclusion. The district
court in Swales was asked to certify a class of individual
transporters under the FLSA who argued they should be characterized
as employees of KLLM, not independent contractors. The district
court instituted its own hybrid version of the Lusardi
certification analysis to grant class certification. On review, the
Fifth Circuit rejected Lusardi and instead reiterated that it is
the district courts who have "broad, litigation-management
discretion" in deciding whether to certify or decertify a class.
The Fifth Circuit held that the district court must consider all
evidence relating to the merits of independent contractor question
to determine whether the analysis could be applied class wide.
While the Fifth Circuit did not address whether the class should be
certified, its reasoning is illustrative. The appellate court
instructs district courts to determine whether assessing the
appropriateness of class certification will begin an individualized
expedition into each class member's circumstances. If so,
certification may not be proper.
As explained by the Magistrate Judge in the instant Amended Report
and Recommendation, to certify a class under the LWPA requires
imposition of the factors set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 2 while the FLSA simply requires the collective
members be "similarly situated." Here, Plaintiffs assert that
because all potential class members seek classification as
employees, the requirements of Rule 23 and the FLSA are met. This
Court agrees that on its face, the proposed members clear the
hurdles of class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RQ4Kgd at no extra charge.[CC]
FOLSOM, CA: Faces Malmquist Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Folsom.
The case is captioned as Harold Malmquist v. The City of Folsom,
Case No. 34-2021-00297646-CU-PO-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
March 29, 2021).
Folsom is a city in Sacramento County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
STONEBARGER LAW, APC
101 Parkshore Dr Ste 100
Folsom, CA 95630-4726
Telephone: (916) 235-7140
E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Class Settlement in Tapia Wins Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIANA SUAREZ TAPIA, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTWAVE CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 20cv1950-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M.
Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California grants the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval
of a class settlement.
Plaintiff Tapia brings the putative wage and hour class action
against the Defendant. She moves for preliminary approval of a
class settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e).
Judge Anello found the matter suitable for determination without
oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and
Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Upon due consideration, he grants the
Plaintiff's motion.
The Judge conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a
"Settlement Class," wherein "Settlement Class" means all Class
Members who did not timely opt-out of the settlement by submitting
a proper Request for Exclusion and "Class Member" means all persons
residing in the United States who were the subject of a consumer
report that was procured by Defendant (or that Defendant caused to
be procured) on or after Oct. 2, 2015 through the date of
Preliminary Approval of this Agreement. The "Class Period" means
Oct. 2, 2015 through the date of preliminary approval of the
Settlement.
Judge Anello approves and adopts the implementation of the schedule
and procedures set forth in subsection D of the Settlement
Agreement ("Class Notice, Opt-Outs and Objections").
Judge Anello also approves, as to form and content, the Class
Notice, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Settlement Agreement and
orders that the Class Notice be disseminated to the proposed Class
as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
The Judge approves, for settlement purposes only, (i) Azadian Law
Group, PC as the Class Counsel, (ii) Adriana Suarez Tapia as the
Representative Plaintiff, and (iii) Simpluris, Inc. as the
third-party Settlement Administrator.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 29, 2021, at
3:30 p.m., in Courtroom 3D of the Edward J. Schwartz United States
Courthouse, located at 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101. All
briefs and materials in support of the Motion for a Final Approval
Order and Judgment and Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
must be filed no later than 28 days before the Final Approval
Hearing.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4k345khx from Leagle.com.
FUN FACTORY: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fun Factory USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fun Factory USA, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03410 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fun Factory USA, Inc. -- https://en.funfactory.com/ -- is a company
based out of Burbank, California.[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
GENERAL MOTORS: Husar Alleges Deceptive Automotive Parts' Packaging
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN HUSAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00204-MRB (S.D. Ohio, March 25, 2021)
contends that the Defendant makes false and deceptive "Made in USA"
claims on its ACDelco automotive parts product packaging, which
induces consumers to choose to buy Defendant's ACDelco parts
instead of parts actually made in the USA, and to pay a premium
price for auto parts believing them to be American made when they
are not.
The Plaintiff and Class members, as reasonable American consumers,
place value on products made in the USA, and Defendant's ACDelco
products' "Made in USA" representation was material to them.
However, Defendant's ACDelco products are not made in the USA but
are made in China, the suit says.
As a result, Defendant's "Made in USA" claims are allegedly
unlawful because they constitute unfair and deceptive acts or
practices in consumer transactions under the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, and breach of implied warranty in tort.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 to seek redress for the injuries the
Defendant has caused to Plaintiff and the other Class members and
to put a stop to Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and unlawful acts
or practices that violate consumer protection laws.
General Motors is one of the most iconic American companies in what
is historically a quintessentially American business: automobile
manufacturing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq.
DANN LAW
P.O. Box 6031040
Cleveland, OH 44103
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
www.attorneyzim.com
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
jeff@attorneyzim.com
firm@attorneyzim.com
GEORGE W. AGAK: Denial of Arbitration in Wells Fargo Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six,
affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit titled WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, Cross-defendant,
and Appellant v. GEORGE W. AGAK, Defendant, Cross-complainant, and
Respondent, Case No. B300635 (Cal. App.).
The matter is an appeal from an order denying a petition to compel
arbitration. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that
petitioner waived any right it may have had to arbitrate. The
Appellate Court affirms.
In August 2017, Wells Fargo brought an action against George W.
Agak to collect $17,000 in credit card debt. Its complaint alleged
breach of contract and common counts.
Attached as an exhibit to the complaint is Wells Fargo's alleged
credit card customer agreement. The agreement contains a dispute
resolution clause. The clause provides that a dispute between the
bank and its customer will be resolved by arbitration. The
agreement prohibits any dispute as a representative or member of a
class.
Mr. Agak answered Wells Fargo's complaint by general denial, and
raised as affirmative defenses: Ambiguity in the amount at issue;
breach of contract; fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; illegal
conduct; violation of public policy; and "Lack of jurisdiction --
Defendant has a right to arbitrate these claims."
Wells Fargo Case Management Statement
In August 2018, Wells Fargo filed a case management statement. It
stated that the case will be ready for trial within 12 months of
the filing of the complaint. Wells Fargo did not request referral
to arbitration.
Discovery
Wells Fargo propounded requests for admissions, form
interrogatories, inspection demands, and special interrogatories.
Agak also propounded form interrogatories and inspection demands.
In September 2018, Agak's response to Wells Fargo's interrogatories
stated that Wells Fargo had charged Agak illegal "credit defense"
fees. He claims Wells Fargo charged the fees without his consent in
violation of the credit card agreement.
Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
In October 2018, Agak filed a motion for leave to file a
cross-complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract,
fraud, unfair competition, failure to correct a billing error in
violation of Civil Code section 1747.50, and declaratory relief.
The cross-complaint alleges Wells Fargo charged Agak an illegal and
unauthorized "credit defense" fee.
Second Case Management Statement
In November 2018, Wells Fargo filed another case management
statement. Like the first statement, Wells Fargo represented to the
court that it was a limited civil case, and asked for a one-day
court trial. Wells Fargo did not request arbitration.
Motion to File Cross-Complaint Granted
In December 2018, the trial court granted Agak's motion to file his
cross-complaint. Wells Fargo did not oppose. It answered the
cross-complaint. The answer alleged 16 affirmative defenses, but
the right to arbitrate was not alleged.
Case Management Conferences
The trial court conducted case management conferences in December
2018 and January 2019. Wells Fargo did not raise the issue of
arbitration.
Amended Cross-Complaint
In February 2019, Agak sought leave to amend the cross-complaint.
The amendment would turn Agak's existing cross-complaint, alleging
Wells Fargo illegally imposed a "credit defense" fee, into a class
action.
While the motion was pending, the trial court conducted another
case management conference. Wells Fargo did not request
arbitration.
Wells Fargo did not oppose the motion to amend the cross-complaint.
The trial court granted the motion.
Removal to Federal Court
In March 2019, Wells Fargo removed the matter to federal court. The
district court sua sponte ordered the case remanded to state court.
The court ordered Wells Fargo to show cause why it should not be
sanctioned for improperly removing the case.
On remand, Wells Fargo filed its answer to Agak's amended
cross-complaint. The answer included as affirmative defenses that
Wells Fargo has the right to arbitrate, and that Agak has waived
the right to bring a class action.
Motion to Compel Arbitration
In May 2019, Wells Fargo petitioned to compel arbitration. The
petition was based on the arbitration provision contained in the
consumer credit card customer agreement. The alleged agreement was
attached to the petition as exhibit A. Wells Fargo's counsel
attempted to authenticate the agreement to arbitrate by declaring:
"Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the
Consumer Credit Card Customer Agreement governing the terms of a
credit card account Defendant and Cross-Claimant George W. Agak had
with Wells Fargo."
Mr. Agak opposed the petition on the ground that Wells Fargo waived
any right it may have had to arbitration by its extensive
participation in the lawsuit.
Ruling
The trial court sustained Agak's objections to both Wells Fargo's
original affidavit and the affidavit in its reply papers. The court
determined by the parties' actions there was no agreement to
arbitrate.
The trial court also found that Wells Fargo waived its right to
arbitration by its participation in the litigation. The trial court
did not consider whether the arbitration agreement is
unconscionable.
Waiver of Arbitration
The trial court found that Wells Fargo waived its right to compel
arbitration by its participation in the litigation.
A determination of waiver is a question of fact, and the Appellate
Court will affirm the trial court's finding if supported by
substantial evidence (St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of
California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1196 (St. Agnes)). Where,
however, the evidence is undisputed and only one reasonable
inference may be drawn, the question is one of law.
Wells Fargo contends the trial court erred in considering its
actions prior to December 18, 2018. That is the date Agak filed his
cross-complaint alleging Wells Fargo unlawfully imposed an
unauthorized "credit defense" fee, the dispute that Wells Fargo now
claims is subject to arbitration.
But Wells Fargo had notice of the dispute that it now claims is
arbitrable at least as early as October 2018, when Agak made a
motion to file his cross-complaint, says Presiding Justice Arthur
Gilbert, writing for the Panel.
Wells Fargo did not respond with a petition to compel arbitration;
nor did it oppose Agak's motion, Judge Gilbert notes. Instead, it
allowed the motion to be granted unopposed, and answered the
cross-complaint without raising arbitration as a defense.
Thereafter, Wells Fargo participated in case management conferences
without mentioning arbitration.
In February 2019, when Agak sought leave to amend his
cross-complaint to convert it to a class action, Wells Fargo still
did not petition to compel arbitration. Instead, it participated in
another case management conference, and allowed the motion to be
granted unopposed.
Wells Fargo responded to the amended cross-complaint by removing
the case to federal court, thus, showing its intent not to
arbitrate, Judge Gilbert observes. It was not until May 2019, seven
months after Agak motioned for leave to file his cross-complaint
that Wells Fargo petitioned to compel arbitration.
St. Agnes points out that a waiver of arbitration is not to be
lightly inferred, and a party seeking to establish a waiver bears a
heavy burden of proof, Judge Gilbert notes. Agak carried that
burden here. Applying the applicable factors listed by the Supreme
Court in St. Agnes, the trial court could reasonably conclude that
Wells Fargo waived the right to arbitrate.
Judge Gilbert opines that the court could reasonably conclude that
Wells Fargo's actions were inconsistent with the right to
arbitrate; that the parties were well into preparation for the
lawsuit; that Wells Fargo delayed for a long period before invoking
the right to arbitrate; that important intervening steps, such as
case management conferences, had taken place; and that the delay
prejudiced Agak by making him spend time and money on the court
action.
Wells Fargo argues it did nothing more than what was necessary to
avoid default. But it could have avoided default by bringing a
motion to compel arbitration in response to Agak's motion for leave
to file a cross-complaint, Judge Gilbert points out. Instead, Wells
Fargo continued to litigate the matter in court.
Moreover, Wells Fargo did more than what was necessary to avoid
default, Judge Gilbert holds. It removed the case to federal court.
Wells Fargo cites St. Agnes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at page 1205 for the
proposition that a party does not waive arbitration by removing to
federal court or otherwise attempting to change venue.
What St. Agnes actually says is that a party does not waive
arbitration rights "merely" by seeking to change venue, but a
waiver determination requires a consideration of all the
circumstances, Judge Gilbert explains. Here, the Judge points out,
the trial court did not find waiver merely because Wells Fargo
removed the case to federal court. The court considered all the
circumstances, including that the federal court sua sponte remanded
the case to state court on the ground that the removal was
obviously improper, resulting in an order to show cause regarding
sanctions.
According to the Opinion, the dissent acknowledges that Wells Fargo
did not request arbitration until May 19 after participating in
numerous court hearings. The dissent ignores that in Agak's answer
to the complaint he raised arbitration. Yet Wells Fargo continued
with the litigation. The dissent also confuses the abuse of
discretion standard with substantial evidence. But assuming the
applicable standard of review is abuse of discretion, the dissent
apparently believes the trial judge's ruling was arbitrary,
capricious, and beyond the bounds of reason. Otherwise, the dissent
is improperly assuming the role of the trial judge.
The judgment (order) is affirmed. Costs are awarded to Agak.
PERREN, J., concurs. TANGEMAN, J., dissents.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 12, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5fvfdcc5 from Leagle.com.
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, Angela J. Morales --
angela.gray@faegredrinker.com -- Alan J. Lazarus --
alan.lazarus@faegredrinker.com -- and Amanda Semaan --
amanda.semaan@faegredrinker.com -- for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant,
and Appellant.
Mardirossian & Associates, Inc., Garo Mardirossian --
garo@garolaw.com -- and Adam Feit -- afeit@garolaw.com -- for
Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Respondent.
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERESA WILSON, RYAN SANDERS, SUSAN CANADA, TIFFANIE SKIBICKI, ANGEL
WILSON, LISA GRAY, SHAWWANA KOONTZ, KRISTINE PAUL, HEATHER LOWREY,
JOLINA MANLEY, JEAN LEFFINGWELL, JESSICA DAVID, SOMMER MCGURL,
HAYLEY PFIEFER and CASSANDRA MARTELL individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,, Case No. 1:21-cv-00372-LO-IDD (E.D. Va,
March 24, 2021) is a class action suit against Gerber for deceptive
business practices, including misrepresentations and omissions,
regarding the presence of dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals
and other contaminants contained within its Gerber Tainted Baby
Foods that Plaintiffs purchased.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the
proposed Class including (i) requiring full disclosure of all such
substances and ingredients in the Defendant's marketing,
advertising, and labeling; (ii) requiring testing of all
ingredients and final products for such substances; and (iii)
restoring monies to the members of the proposed Class.
According to the complaint, parents and other caregivers, including
the Plaintiffs, reasonably believe that the baby food they purchase
for their babies will be healthy, nutritious, and non-toxic, and
that is what Gerber wanted them to think. Alarmingly, parents and
Plaintiffs were wrong. A recent report by the U.S. House of
Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy,
Committee on Oversight and Reform reveals that certain brands of
commercial baby food -- including Defendant Gerber's Tainted Baby
Foods -- are tainted with significant and dangerous levels of toxic
heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury.
Exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ and
endangers neurological development and long-term brain function,
among numerous other deleterious alarming conditions and problems,
the suit adds.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment, and violations
of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief as authorized in
equity or by law.
The Plaintiffs had purchased Tainted Baby Foods that were
manufactured and produced by Defendant Gerber that have been found
to contain dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals.
The Defendant packages, labels, markets, advertises, formulates,
manufactures, distributes, and sells its Tainted Baby Foods
throughout the United States, including New York and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles L. Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS & SKILLING, P.C.
7104 Mechanicsville Turnpike, Suite 204
Mechanicsville, VA 23111
Telephone: (804) 447-0307, ext. 305
Facsimile: (804) 447-0367
E-mail: cwilliams@williamsandskilling.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Hewitt Suit Sues Over Unfair Real-Time Bidding System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN HEWITT and KIMBERLEY WOODRUFF, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-02155
(N.D. Calif., March 26, 2021) identifies how Google actively sells
and shares consumers' personal information with thousands of
entities, ranging from advertisers to publishers to hedge funds to
political campaigns and even to the government, through its Google
Real-Time Bidding system.
According to the complaint, Google promised it would not use for
advertising purposes. These practices are not disclosed to
consumers.
This case is brought on behalf of all Google account holders whose
personal information is sold and disseminated by Google to
thousands of companies through Google's proprietary advertising
auction process effectuated through real-time bidding (RTB)
auctions.
Google runs the world's largest RTB auction (the Google RTB). In
the Google RTB, Google solicits participants to bid on sending an
ad to a specific individual (the Target). Google provides highly
specific information about the Target in the Bid Request provided
to auction participants, including data that identifies the
individual person being targeted through unique identifiers, device
identifiers and IP addresses, among other information. The
collected data provided about the Target to auction participants is
called "Bidstream Data."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley Weaver, Esq.
Matthew S. Melamed, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
mmelamed@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
aornelas@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Caroline C. Corbitt, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
ccc@pritzkerlevine.com
- and -
Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
Eric Johnson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
GOTTA GETTA: Martinez Seeks Cooks & Bagel Makers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, VALENTIN MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOTTA GETTA BAGEL OF
WOODMERE INC., and JOEL BARUCH as an individual, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01808 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021) challenges the
Defendants' unlawful employment practices that egregiously violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff, who has worked as a cook and bagel maker for the
Defendants from in or around March 2019 until in or around October
2020, asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants failed to pay him overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours he worked over 40 in a workweek;
-- The Defendants failed to pay him spread-of-hours pay at the
legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours;
-- The Defendants failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements; and
-- The Defendants failed to keep accurate payroll records.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated cook and bagel maker
seeking to recover compensatory damages for unpaid overtime wages,
as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief
as the Court deems necessary and proper.
Gotta Getta Bagel of Woodmere Inc. sells bagels. Joel Baruch owns
and operates Gotta Getta. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
GREATBANC TRUST: Clare ERISA Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMANDA CLARE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, LONG POINT
CAPITAL, INC., LONG POINT CAPITAL FUND II, L.P., LONG POINT CAPITAL
PARTNERS II, L.P., LONG POINT CAPITAL FUND III, L.P., and LONG
POINT CAPITAL PARTNERS III, L.P., Case No. 1:21-cv-00367, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on April 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-03393-AJN to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
after the EYP Employee Stock Ownership Plan and its participants
suffered losses by allowing the Plan to buy shares of EYP Group
Holdings, Inc. for more than fair market value in 2016.
GreatBanc Trust Company is an independent trust company,
headquartered at 801 Warrenville Road, Suite 500, Lisle, Illinois.
Long Point Capital, Inc. is a private equity firm, with its
principal place of business located at 747 Third Ave., 22nd Floor,
New York, New York.
Long Point Capital Fund II, L.P. is a limited partnership with its
principal place of business at 747 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New
York, New York.
Long Point Capital Partners II, L.P. is a limited partnership with
its principal place of business at 747 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New
York, New York.
Long Point Capital Fund III, L.P. is a limited partnership with its
principal place of business at 747 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New
York, New York.
Long Point Capital Partners III, L.P. is a limited partnership with
its principal place of business at 747 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
333 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 2736
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 995-7143
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and –
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
gporter@baileyglasser.com
GROUND EFFECTS: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON I. VARGAS and other similarly situated individuals v. GROUND
EFFECTS, INC. and LUIS VALDES, individually, Case No.
1:21-cv-21142-FAM (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2021) is an action to
recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
During his employment with Defendants, every month, the Plaintiff
contends that he worked 2 weeks of 5 days, and 2 weeks of 6 days.
He had a regular schedule, and he worked from Monday to Saturday
from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. (10 hours daily). He always worked more
than 40 hours weekly, but he was not paid for overtime hours as
required by the FLSA, he asserts.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff from March 1, 2018, to
September 30, 2019, or 82 weeks. The Plaintiff was hired as a
non-exempted full-time landscaper, and he was paid at the daily
rate of $100.00.
Ground Effects is a full-service landscaping company located in
Miami, Dade County, where Plaintiff worked. The individual
Defendant was and is now the owner/partner/officer and operator of
Defendant Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Coffman Balks at Proposed Merger Deal With Jazz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE COFFMAN v. GW PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, GEOFFREY GUY, JUSTIN
GOVER, CABOT BROWN, DAVID GRYSKA, CATHERINE MACKEY, JAMES NOBLE,
ALICIA SECOR, and WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE, Case No.
3:21-cv-00537-BEN-RBB (S.D. Calif., March 26, 2021) is a class
action suit brought by Plaintiff against GW Pharmaceuticals and the
members of GW's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.14a-9, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which GW will merge with Jazz
Pharmaceuticals through Jazz's wholly owned subsidiary Jazz
Pharmaceuticals UK Holdings Limited.
On February 3, 2021, GW and Jazz issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into a transaction agreement dated
February 3, 2021 (the "Merger Agreement") to sell GW to Jazz. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, holders of GW ordinary shares
will receive $16.66 2/3 in cash plus an amount of Jazz ordinary
shares equal to an exchange ratio that will be calculated based
upon Jazz's share price, and holders of American Depositary Shares
of GW ("GW ADSs") will receive approximately $220 in cash and $20
in Jazz stock in consideration for their GW ADSs (the "Merger
Consideration").
On March 15, 2021, GW filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that GW stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material
information concerning the Company's and Jazz's financial
projections and the financial analyses supporting the fairness
opinions provided by the Board's financial advisors, Centerview
Partners LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC.
In short, unless remedied, GW's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.
The Plaintiff is, and has been a continuous stockholder of GW.
GW is a public limited company incorporated in England and Wales,
with its principal executive offices located at Sovereign House,
Vision Park, Chivers Way, Histon, Cambridge, United Kingdom and an
administrative office located at 5750 Fleet Street, Suite 200,
Carlsbad, California. The Company is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on discovering, developing and commercializing novel
therapeutics from its proprietary cannabinoid product platform in a
broad range of disease areas. The Individual Defendants are
officers and directors of Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd., No. 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Anderson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Anderson and Marla Micks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, Case No.
2:21-cv-01621 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2021) is a class action
complaint against Hain Celestial for its negligent, reckless,
and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully
disclose the presence or risk of arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium
(heavy metals) and/or perchlorate or other ingredients in the
Defendant's Earth's Best Organic Baby Foods that do not conform to
the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements of these
products sold throughout the United States.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Class and Sub-Classes including requiring full
disclosure of all such substances and ingredients in Defendant's
marketing, advertising, and labeling; requiring testing of all
ingredients and final products for such substances; and restoring
monies to the members of the proposed Classes.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells baby food products under the brand name
Earth's Best Organics throughout the United States. It states that
it offers "organic infant, baby, and toddler foods that are pure,
quality products you can trust" and touts that it conducts
"Rigorous product testing to guarantee quality and safety."
The Defendant's packaging and labels further emphasize its alleged
use of quality ingredients that are safe for human infant, baby,
and toddler consumption by the use of its "Earth's Best" brand
name, suggesting that the ingredients and finished product are
premium and high quality, and the representation that the Baby
Foods are "organic baby food," suggesting that it is appropriate
for consumption by babies.
However, nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements,
warranties, and/or packaging does Defendant disclose that the Baby
Foods include and/or have a high risk of containing heavy metals or
other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements, the Plaintiffs contend.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Halcon Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GIDGET HALCON and NAMIA HOSSAIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, Case No.
3:21-cv-02156 (N.D. Calif., March 26, 2021) is a class action
complaint against Hain Celestial for its negligent, reckless,
and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully
disclose the presence or risk of arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium
(heavy metals) and/or perchlorate or other ingredients in the
Defendant's Earth's Best Organic Baby Foods that do not conform to
the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements of these
products sold throughout the United States.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Class and Sub-Classes including requiring full
disclosure of all such substances and ingredients in Defendant's
marketing, advertising, and labeling; requiring testing of all
ingredients and final products for such substances; and restoring
monies to the members of the proposed Classes.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells baby food products under the brand name
Earth's Best Organics throughout the United States. It states that
it offers "organic infant, baby, and toddler foods that are pure,
quality products you can trust" and touts that it conducts
"Rigorous product testing to guarantee quality and safety."
The Defendant's packaging and labels further emphasize its alleged
use of quality ingredients that are safe for human infant, baby,
and toddler consumption by the use of its "Earth's Best" brand
name, suggesting that the ingredients and finished product are
premium and high quality, and the representation that the Baby
Foods are "organic baby food," suggesting that it is appropriate
for consumption by babies.
However, nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements,
warranties, and/or packaging does Defendant disclose that the Baby
Foods include and/or have a high risk of containing heavy metals or
other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements, the Plaintiffs contend.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Cinela Aziz, Esq.
Jessica Behmanesh, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
cinela@wilshirelawfirm.com
jbehmanesh@wilshirelawfirm.com
HALLEN CONSTRUCTION: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Lewis Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEAN LEWIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents v. THE
HALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant, JOHN DOE
BONDING COMPANY, Defendant, Index No. 151729/17, Appeal No.
13570-13571, Case Nos. 2020-01427, 2020-01614, 2020-01615 (N.Y.
App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York, First Department, enters an Order that:
(A) unanimously affirmed, with costs, (i) the order of Supreme
Court of New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on
May 3, 2019, which denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) or for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (ii) the
order entered on July 11, 2019, which granted the
Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902 to certify
the action as a class action; and
(B) unanimously dismissed, without costs, the order of the
order of Supreme Court of New York County (Barbara Jaffe,
J.), entered Aug. 9, 2019, which directed the Defendant's
counsel to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with the names
and last known addresses of each class member and the
Plaintiffs' counsel to send a notice of class action to
all class members by first-class mail within 15 days of
receipt of the list.
Assuming, without deciding, that collective bargaining agreements
have some relevance to the merits of the Plaintiffs' prevailing
wage claims, the Appellate Division finds that the motion court
correctly found that those claims are not preempted by section 301
of the federal Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (61 US Stat
156, codified at 29 USC Section 185). It holds that whether or not
the construction projects at issue were public works projects is
not dispositive since the prevailing wage requirements of Labor Law
Section 220 were applicable pursuant to both Administrative Code of
City of NY Section 19-142 and a contractual provision.
The Appellate Division also finds that the motion court providently
exercised its discretion in granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification (CPLR 901). Affidavits by both of the named
Plaintiffs and three other former employees of the Defendant
attesting that at least 30 to 50 workers performed the work at
issue establish the numerosity of the class, and commonality and
typicality are established by the fact that all the claims arise
from defendant's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages.
Moreover, "a class action is the superior vehicle for resolving
wage disputes since the damages allegedly suffered by an individual
class member are likely to be insignificant, and the costs of
prosecuting individual actions would result in the class members
having no realistic day in court." The Plaintiffs established that
the court is a proper forum by presenting evidence that much of the
work at issue was performed in New York County. The Defendant's
arguments about its place of business and its employees' residences
are unavailing, in light of its contractual consent to litigating
in state courts located in New York City and conducting discovery
in New York City.
The August 2019 order is not appealable as of right (CPLR
5701[a][2]), as the Defendant concedes, and the Appellate Division
declines to consider the notice of appeal as a motion for leave to
appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/6ze9nekn from Leagle.com.
Westermann Sheehy Keenan Samaan & Aydelott, LLP, East Meadow (Peter
S. Samaan -- petersamaan@westerlaw.com -- of counsel), for
Appellant.
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (James Emmet Murphy --
jmurphy@vandallp.com -- of counsel), for Respondents.
HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE: Faces Oyie FEHA Suit Over Disparate Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THEODORA OYIE, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a California
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 213TCV11391 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 24, 2021) alleges that HD
appropriated Ms. Oyie and her work product in order to pursue other
large projects, yet refused to equitably pay her and treat her
equally to her non-African America male counterparts in violation
of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
According to the complaint, when Plaintiff complained about the
disparate treatment, she was either dismissed or retaliated against
and terminated in a demeaning manner which caused extreme financial
hardships and reputational harm to her in the industry. Some of the
financial hardships that the Plaintiff has suffered as result of
the unequitable compensation discrepancies include inability to
timely pay her student loans, maintain mortgage payments, and other
numerous family obligations. The Plaintiff is now facing potential
foreclosure on her home, says the suit.
The Plaintiff continues to suffer damages in the form of lost
wages, benefits, and other employment benefits. As a result of the
financial losses and the loss of her employment, the Plaintiff has
suffered and continues to suffer emotional stress, including
frustration, mental anguish, anxiety, depression, loss of
confidence, nervousness, humiliation, and anxiety.
On August 24, 2020, the Plaintiff exhausted her administrative
remedies by filing a claim with the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing and received a Notice of Closure and
Right-to-Sue letter and an amendment.
HD is a large construction company that provides general
contracting, project planning and management services for
commercial, cultural and technical facilities in San Francisco Bay
area, Silicon Valley and Southern California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
Andrea M. Fernandez, Esq.
JACKSON LAW, APC
2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 281-6857
Facsimile: (949) 777-6218
E-mail: ajackson@jacksonapc.com
afernandez@jacksonapc.com
HAWKINSON NISSAN: Jones Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAWKINSON NISSAN, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01823 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has transmitted multiple
prerecorded voice messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 6473 from 2019 through 2020. The Defendant's
prerecorded voice messages have been attempting to convince the
Plaintiff to bring her vehicle in so that she could be offered top
dollar for it and to get her into a newer vehicle. The Plaintiff
asserts that she never provided the Defendant with her express
written consent to be contacted by prerecorded messages.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded messages,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were harmed,
including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion. It also caused inconvenience
to them and disruption to their daily life, the suit adds.
On behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking relief that includes actual
and statutory damages, treble damages, and other relief as the
Court deems necessary.
Hawkinson Nissan, LLC operates a car dealership selling new and
used cars as well as vehicle maintenance, service and parts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJhlaw.com
HEADLANDS VENTURES: Faces Aguirre Employment Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Headlands Ventures,
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Adrian Aguirre vs. Headlands
Ventures, LLC, and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00297290-CU-OE-GDS
(Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 24, 2021),
The suit arises from employment-related issues.
Headland Ventures is a Venture Partnership focused on early stage
company investing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com
HIGHMARK INC: Faces Cole Suit Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN COLE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHMARK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00442-MPK (W.D. Penn., April 6, 2021) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendant pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for its alleged failure to pay
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Care Management
Nurse from approximately June 2017 to the September 24, 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified her and
other similarly situated Care Management Nurses as exempt from
federal overtime and state laws. Although the Defendant suffered
and permitted them to work more than 40 hours per week, they were
not paid their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate for hours they worked
over 40. In addition, the Defendant failed to make, keep, or
preserve adequate or accurate records of the hours worked by its
Care Management Nurses, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover from the Defendant
all unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rates, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and
just.
Highmark, Inc. operates health insurance plans in Pennsylvania,
Delaware and West Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colleen Ramage Johnston, Esq.
JOHNSTON LYKOS, LLC
525 William Penn Place, 28th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: (412) 325-7700
Fax: (412) 325-7755
E-mail: cjohnston@johnstonlykos.com
- and –
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Caroline E. Bressman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South Eight St., St. 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 256-3200
Fax: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: srey@nka.com
cbressman@nka.com
HOTEL VALENCIA: $91K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in McShan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MORGAN McSHAN, Plaintiff v. HOTEL VALENCIA
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-03316-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, grants the Class Counsel's motion
for attorneys' fees.
The Class Counsel has four requests: (1) an attorneys' fee award of
25% of the settlement fund, which is the benchmark percentage for
attorneys' fees; (2) reimbursement of $6,673.02 in litigation
expenses and $7,499 in settlement administration fees; (3) a
service award of $2,500 to Class Representative Morgan McShan; (4)
and an allocation of $5,000 to release the class' claims under
California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
The Court held a hearing on the motion on April 8, 2021. In
response to the Court's questions at the hearing, the Class Counsel
filed a supplemental declaration regarding attorneys' fees on April
9, 2021.
Judge Koh grants the Class Counsel's request for an attorneys' fees
award of $91,250, which is 25% of the settlement fund. She finds
that the Class Counsel performed enough work to justify a
"presumptively reasonable" 25% fee award.
Having reviewed the submissions of the Class Counsel, Judge Koh
also finds that their requests for unreimbursed expenses are
reasonable. Accordingly, she orders that $6,673.02 in litigation
expenses and $7,499 in settlement administration fees be paid from
the settlement fund to the Class Counsel.
Judge Koh further approves a $2,500 service award to Class
Representative Morgan McShan. She holds that McShan contributed to
the instant case by (1) testifying at a full-day deposition; (2)
participating in a mediation; (3) asking several former coworkers
to contact Class Counsel; and (4) providing factual background to
support the lawsuit. Other courts have approved service awards
based on similar contributions. Under the circumstances, a service
award of $2,500 is reasonable.
Finally, Judge Koh approves the Class Counsel's requested PAGA
penalty of $4,000. Pursuant to the Class Counsel's request, $3,000
will be remitted to the LWDA and $1,000 will remain in the
settlement fund. She holds that the Class Counsel's PAGA penalty
is reasonable on two grounds. First, California's Labor and
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") has not objected to the
proposed PAGA penalty despite several opportunities to do so.
Second, a PAGA penalty of $4,000 would represent about 5% of the
estimated recovery on the PAGA claim.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for attorneys' fees. She orders the following: (i) attorneys' fees
in the amount of $91,250 be paid to the Class Counsel; (ii)
$6,673.02 in litigation expenses and $7,499 in settlement
administration fees be paid to the Class Counsel; (iii) a $2,500
service award be paid to Class Representative Morgan McShan; and
(iv) pursuant to the Class Counsel's request, $3,000 of the $4,000
PAGA penalty will be remitted to the LWDA and $1,000 will remain in
the settlement fund.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/52vyzcvw from Leagle.com.
HOTEL VALENCIA: Class Settlement in McShan Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MORGAN McSHAN, Plaintiff v. HOTEL VALENCIA
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-03316-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement.
On Dec. 7, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement.
On April 8, 2021, the Court held a hearing to consider final
approval of the Settlement. Having considered all the briefing,
the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record in the
case, Judge Koh grants the parties' motion for final approval of
the Settlement.
The Settlement Class is defined as "All current and former
non-exempt employees who worked at any time for Defendant in
California from April 10, 2015 through Dec. 9, 2019 excluding any
such individuals who opt out of this Settlement."
Judge Koh finds that the Settlement Class meets the Rule 23
requirements and certifies the Settlement Class. She further finds
that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate
to the Settlement Class and to each Settlement Class Member. As of
the filing of the motion for final approval, there were no
objections and only one opt out. Settlement Class Members who did
not timely submit opt out forms will be bound by the Settlement.
Judge Koh finds that the distribution plan is fair, adequate, and
reasonable. The amount of payments to each participating
Settlement Class Member will be calculated based on each Settlement
Class Member's share of the Net Settlement Fund, as determined by
the number of compensable pay periods worked by each Settlement
Class Member during the class period. If a Settlement Class Member
does not cash his or her settlement check within 180 days, the
uncashed funds will be transmitted in accordance with California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 384(b) to Legal Aid at Work in San
Francisco, CA.
The Settlement is ordered finally approved. All terms and
provisions of the Settlement should be and are ordered to be
consummated.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wnjee3u from Leagle.com.
HUMANA AT HOME: Class Settlement in Kinkead Suit Gets Prelim. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVERLYNN KINKEAD et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUMANA AT HOME,
INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01637 (JAM) (D. Conn.),
Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut granted the Parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement.
Judge Meyer certified, for settlement purposes only, the following
Classes:
a. New York State Law Settlement Class comprised of all
persons employed in New York in a home healthcare worker
position for Humana, Inc., Humana at Home Inc. and
Seniorbridge Family Companies Inc. during the period from
Nov. 10, 2009 to Nov. 30, 2020 who worked at least one
24-hour live-in shift and who did not exclude themselves
pursuant to the initial class notice. The names of these
class members are set forth in Ex. B to the Settlement
Agreement. The Class also includes the Estate
Representatives of deceased class members listed on Ex B,
if any; and
b. Connecticut State Law Settlement Class comprised of all
persons employed in Connecticut as a home healthcare worker
position for Humana, Inc., Humana at Home Inc. and
Seniorbridge Family Companies (CT), Inc. who (1) during the
period from Jan. 1, 2015 to Nov. 30, 2020 worked at least
one 24-hour live-in shift, or (2) who worked more than 40
hours in a workweek without proper overtime compensation
between Jan. 1, 2015 and Oct. 13, 2015. The names of these
class members are set forth in Ex. C to the Settlement
Agreement. The Class also includes the Estate
Representatives of deceased class members listed on Ex C,
if any.
The Settlement Agreement and the terms and conditions of the
settlement set forth therein, and all exhibits attached thereto,
are preliminarily approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, entered into in good faith, free of collusion, are in the
best interest of the classes and are within the range of possible
results if the case was litigated.
The requested service payments, costs, Claims, Administration
costs, and Reserve Funds to be deducted from the Gross Settlement
Amount for purposes of calculating the Net Settlement Amount, as
well as the methodology for allocating the settlement funds among
the Participating Settlement Class Members is preliminarily
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. With respect to the
proposed counsel fees of one-third of the settlement amount, the
parties may use that fee for purposes of calculating the Net
Settlement Amount and the preliminary minimum settlement payments;
however, the Court will require more information to ensure
reasonableness and hourly billing data to conduct a cross-check
against lodestar before final approval.
Daverlynn Kinkead, Shirley Caillo, and Claude Mathieu are adequate
class representatives and their nomination to serve in that
capacity is approved.
Philip Bohrer, Bohrer Brady, LLC, Michael J.D. Sweeney and Artemio
Guerrero, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC, and Edward J. Tuddenham are
appointed as the Class Counsel.
Settlement Services, Inc. is approved as the Claims Administrator.
The form and content of the Notices, Claim Forms and Change of
Address forms, which will be updated by the Claims Administrator to
include the date of the Final Fairness Hearing and other deadlines,
as well as the manner and method of dissemination of notice, as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement, constitute the best Notice
practicable under the circumstances and satisfies the requirements
of Rule 23 and due process and are approved.
A Final Fairness Hearing will be conducted at the Richard C. Lee
U.S. Courthouse, 141 Church Street, Courtroom Three, New Haven, CT
06510, on Aug. 24, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. The Class Counsel will file
a Motion, with supporting memorandum, in support of final approval
of the proposed settlement, including attorneys' fees, costs, and
service awards, no later than Au. 10, 2021.
Aany objections by Class Members to the fairness or reasonableness
of the proposed settlement, Class Counsel's requested fees, costs,
or the requested service awards, will be considered if made in
writing and mailed to the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later
than 60 days from the date of mailing of the Settlement Notice.
Only the 556 additional Settlement Class Members who were not sent
the Court's previously approved Notice may opt out of the
settlement by mailing to the Claims Administrator a written request
to opt out in the manner and form set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, postmarked no later than 60 days from the date of
mailing of the Settlement Notice.
The laim Forms, for those Settlement Class Members who must submit
a Claim Form to be eligible to receive a Settlement Payment, must
be submitted to the Claims Administrator either online using the
Claim Form provided on the settlement website, or postmarked on or
before the 90th day from the date of mailing of the Settlement
Notice.
The Class Action Settlement Qualified Settlement Fund provided for
in the Settlement Agreement will be established as a Qualified
Settlement Fund within the meaning of Treasury Reg. Sect. 1.4.68B-1
and pursuant to the Court's continuing subject matter jurisdiction
under Treasury Reg. Sect. 1.4.68B-1(c)(1). The Qualified
Settlement Fund will be administered in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.
Judge Meyer ordered that the Parties comply with the following
deadlines, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement:
a. Defendants provide to Claims Administrator addresses, email
addresses, phone numbers, and employee identification
(EMPLOYEES ID numbers) and Social Security Numbers for each
member of the settlement classes -- April 16, 2021;
b. Class Counsel and Defendants pay $17,500 each into the
Qualified Settlement Fund -- 10 days after preliminary
approval order;
c. Claims Administrator disseminates notice -- 20 days after
preliminary approval order;
d. A Settlement Class Members deadline to file objections to
the Settlement -- 60 days after the date notice is sent;
e. Deadline for Settlement Class Members to opt-out of the
Settlement -- 60 days after the date notice is sent;
f. Deadline for Settlement Class Members to file Claim Forms
-- 90 days after the date notice was sent;
g. Deadline for Settlement Class Members to cure deficient opt
out forms -- 70 days after the date notice was sent;
h. Claims Administrator may remail/email/text Settlement Class
Members who request the settlement documents -- 90 days
after notice is sent;
i. Counsel for Defendants provides proof of CAFA notice
compliance -- 30 days before Final Fairness Hearing;
j. Class Counsel or Counsel for Defendants terminating event
exercises -- 7 business days after termination rights
occurs;
k. Class Counsel calculates final Payment Settlement Payments
-- 10 days before Final Approval Hearing; and
l. Class Counsel provides Counsel for Defendants with a list
of final Settlement Payments -- 10 days before Final
Approval Hearing.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/6rycbaxw from Leagle.com.
HUNTER ROBERTS: Fails to Pay Construction Expenses, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE IDEAL SUPPLY COMPANY individually and on behalf of all lienors,
claimants, and creditors similarly situated entitled to share in
funds received by Hunter Roberts Construction Group, L.L.C., in
connection with the improvement located at 22 N. Loop Road,
Roosevelt Island, NY 10044 in the County of New York, under Article
3-A of the New York State Lien Law v. HUNTER ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION
GROUP, L.L.C., UNIT-HOLDERS OF AJ CAPITAL REAL ESTATE FUND II LP,
GRADUATE HOTELS REAL ESTATE FUND III LP, and "JOHN DOE No. 1"
through "JOHN DOE No. 10", being fictitious and unknown to
Plaintiff, the persons or parties being the persons or parties, if
any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises
described in the Complaint, Case No. 153002/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New
York Cty., March 26, 2021) arises after the Defendant entered into
a prime contract with the New York City Economic Development
Corporation (the EDC) and/or the Developers for the improvement and
betterment of the Premises (the Project).
The Defendant, as General Contractor to the Project, entered into a
subcontract with JPR Mechanical (JPR) for the performance of
certain components of the prime contract between Hunter Roberts,
the EDC, and/or the Developers.
In March 2019 through August 2019, Plaintiff and JPR, in
furtherance of the aforementioned contracts, entered into a series
of Purchase Orders (Agreements), whereby the Plaintiff agreed to
furnish certain goods and materials for the improvement of the
Project and JPR promised to pay Plaintiff in the matter set forth
in said Agreements in the sum of $98,601.60.
After the delivery of the supplies, materials, labor, and related
materials was completed by the Plaintiff and after the performance
of all terms and conditions contained in the Agreements, JPR and
Defendants allegedly refused to make all payments to Plaintiff as
agreed, leaving the sum due and owing to Plaintiff of $98,601.60.
The labor, goods, and materials delivered and furnished by
Plaintiff were delivered and furnished for the improvement of the
described real property and were performed and furnished with the
full knowledge and consent and at the request of the Defendants and
JPR.
JPR is not a party to this action as JPR filed a Chapter 7
Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy protection on or about August 16,
2019 and to include JPR in this action would be a violation of 11
USC sectoon 362(A).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik A. Ortmann, Esq.
Andrew G. Kao, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
Telephone: (516) 681-1100
ICON CLINICAL: Faces Nesbeth ERISA Suit Over 401(k) Plan Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS O. NESBETH, AMIT GODAMBE, JENNY GALLERY, MISTY HOWELL and
MICAH WEBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH, LLC, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH, LLC, THE 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE OF ICON
CLINICAL RESEARCH, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:21-cv-01444
(E.D. Pa., March 26, 2021) is a class action brought pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the
Plan's fiduciaries, which include ICON Clinical Research, LLC, the
Board of Directors of ICON Clinical Research and its members, and
the 401(k) Plan Committee of ICON Clinical Research, LLC and its
members during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.
To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care,
skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing
a plan of similar scope.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by failing to
objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio
with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in
terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan
despite the availability of identical or similar investment options
with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and (3)
failing to control the Plan's administrative and recordkeeping
costs.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' mismanagement of the
Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries,
constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence in violation
of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104. Their actions were contrary to actions
of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants
millions of dollars, the suit says.
Based on this alleged conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against
Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One)
and failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Two).
ICON is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal
place of business being 2100 Pennbrook Parkway, North Wales,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
markg@capozziadler.com
IN2VISION PROGRAMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davtyan Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAM DAVTYAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, v. IN2VISION PROGRAMS, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; LUANA ACUNA, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21NWCV00175 (Calif. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 24, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to
provide employment records, failed to pay overtime and double time
and failed to provide rest and meal periods in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Ms. Davtyan was hired by the defendants as a Personal
Attendant-CIT/Instructor on September 6, 2017. The aggrieved
employees worked for all of the defendants or for either of the
defendants as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees.
Based in California, In2Vision Programs, LLC operates as an
instructional agency specializing in clients with developmental
disabilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
INSURANCE SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in Peterson ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JILLYN PETERSON, et al., individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-13223 (SDW) (AME)
(D.N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint.
The case centers on the alleged mismanagement of the ISO 401(k)
Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan by its fiduciaries in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"),
29 U.S.C. Section 1104.
The Plaintiffs were participants in the Plan during their
respective employment and bring the action individually and on
behalf of a purported class against the Plan's alleged fiduciaries
("Committee Defendants"), including: Insurance Services Office,
Inc. ("ISO"), the Plan Administration Committee of Insurance
Services Office, Inc., and the Trusts Investment Committee of
Insurance Services Office, Inc. The Plan is considered a "defined
contribution" or "individual account" employee benefit plan under
ERISA such that a participant's retirement benefits depend on his
or her account contributions.
Between 2014 and 2018, the Plan had at least $1.1 billion in assets
and as many as 7,787 participants, rendering it one of the largest
defined contribution plans in the United States. Accordingly, the
Plan is considered a "jumbo plan" in the marketplace and yields
substantial bargaining power as it relates to the fees and expenses
it deducted against participants' investments.
The Plaintiffs aver that from Sept. 24, 2014 through the date of
judgment, the Committee Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
of prudence and loyalty in violation of ERISA, Section 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104(a), by imprudently managing the Plan's investments and
recordkeeping fees (Count I), and that ISO and the Administrative
Committee failed to adequately monitor the Committee Defendants as
Plan fiduciaries (Count II).
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs
opposed and the Defendants replied.
A. Statutory Standing
As a preliminary matter, Judge Wigenton rejects the Defendants'
argument that the Plaintiffs lack standing under ERISA for claims
that arose before Oct. 1, 2016 and after Jan. 31, 2019. Pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2), a "participant, beneficiary or
fiduciary" may bring a civil action for breach of fiduciary duty.
The Defendants do not contest that the Plaintiffs are Plan
participants within Section 1132(a)(2); however, they dispute
whether the Class Period may begin on Sept. 24, 2014, when at least
one plaintiff did not participate in the Plan until Oct. 1, 2016.
In Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 142 & n.9
(1985), the Supreme Court has stated that actions under Section
1132(a)(2) are "brought in a representative capacity on behalf of
the plan as a whole" such that remedies "protect the entire plan."
Because the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' imprudent course
of conduct, which arose prior to their participation in the Plan,
caused injuries to themselves they "may seek relief under Section
1132(a)(2) that sweeps beyond their own injury." In addition, at
this juncture, the purported removal of the challenged funds from
the Plan is an insufficient basis to end the Class Period on Jan.
31, 2019. Accordingly, the Judge turns to the sufficiency of the
allegations.
B. Count I
Under a holistic lens, Judge Wigenton opines that the allegations
plausibly support the Plaintiffs' claim that the Committee
Defendants failed to act with the level of care, skill, prudence,
and diligence required under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1).
The Plaintiffs maintain that these investment alternatives would
have been investigated by prudent fiduciaries and, as a result,
investments with cheaper costs should have been selected.
Moreover, they allege that most of the Plan's funds charged
higher-than-average fees, as compared to median expense ratios in
the same category. Based on these allegations, the Court may infer
that the Committee Defendants failed to perform their fiduciary
duties.
In addition, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently
allege a plausible breach of fiduciary duties claim. Their
allegations support the inference that a breach of fiduciary duty
occurred. For the reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Count
I for breach of ERISA's fiduciary duty of prudence is denied.
The Defendants separately move to dismiss Count I premised on their
purported breach of ERISA's duty of loyalty because the Plaintiffs
attempt to use the same allegations to support both a breach of the
duty of prudence and loyalty. The Plaintiffs seemingly admit that
they have pleaded a "breach of the intertwined fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence as a single count."
ERISA breach of loyalty claims must be premised on allegations that
defendants acted to either benefit themselves or a third party.
Because the Plaintiffs concede that their allegations for each type
of breach are intertwined, and because there are no allegations
that the Defendants' conduct amounted to self-dealing or benefitted
a thirty party, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' ERISA breach of loyalty claim.
C. Count II
Finally, the Plaintiffs maintain that ISO and the Administrative
Committee did not adequately monitor the Committee Defendants
because they failed to (i) evaluate the Committee Defendants'
performance, (ii) review the processes for investment evaluations
and investigate other low-cost, alternative investment options, and
(iii) remove under-performing committee members (Count II). The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs merely recite the elements of
a monitoring claim and that Count II must fail because Count I is
insufficiently pleaded.
Judge Wigenton opines that the Plaintiffs allege that ISO and the
Administrative Committee maintained the authority to appoint and
remove committee members and had no system for monitoring or
evaluating the Committee Defendants' performance. Thus, the
allegations amount to more than a mere recitation of legal
elements. In addition, failure to monitor claims are derivative of
a fiduciary's independent breach of his or her duty. The Court
already found that Count I may proceed for the Committee
Defendants' alleged breach of ERISA's duty of prudence.
Accordingly, the Defendants' argument that "there is no predicate
basis for a failure to monitor claim" is unavailing, and their
motion to dismiss Count II is denied.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Wigenton granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. An appropriate
order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2wdd5z3s from Leagle.com.
INTEL CORP: Londers Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as HOLLY LONDERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
INTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 35-2021-CA-000301 (Filed Feb. 17, 2021)
was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in
and for Lake County, Florida to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando) on March 26, 2021.
The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:21-cv-00182-JSM-PRL to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Intel violated the Florida Security of
Communications Act, when it used tracking, recording, and/or
"session replay" software to intercept Plaintiff's and the putative
class members' electronic communications with Intel's website
www.intel.com.
Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
Silicon Valley.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.,
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132,
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Beth-ann E. Krimsky
Aaron T. Williams
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 527-2427
Facsimile: (954) 333-4027
E-mail: beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com
clemencia.corzo@gmlaw.com
aaron.williams@gmlaw.com
agatha.mctier@gmlaw.com
- and -
Vanessa S. Power, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University St., Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 386-7553
E-mail: vanessa.power@stoel.com
INVESTORS BANK: Faces Wilkerson Suit Over OD Fee Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
RAMONA WILKERSON and STACY MALCOLM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. INVESTORS BANK, Case No.
ESX-L-002371-21 (N.J. Super., March 23, 2021) is a class action
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf of Classes of all
similarly situated consumers against Investors Bank arising from
its routine practices of a) assessing more than one insufficient
funds fee (NSF Fee) on the same item; and b) assessing Overdraft
Fees (OD Fees) on transactions that did not actually overdraw
checking accounts.
According to the complaint, Investors misleadingly and deceptively
misrepresents its OD Fee practices, including in its own account
contracts. Investors's practices violate New Jersey's consumer
protection statute, as well as Investors's own form contracts.
Investors's improper scheme to extract funds from account holders
has victimized the Plaintiffs and hundreds of other similarly
situated consumers. Unless enjoined, Investors will continue to
engage in these schemes and will continue to cause substantial
injury to its consumers, the suit says.
Plaintiff Wilkerson is a citizen and resident of Orange, New Jersey
and has a checking account with Investors. Plaintiff Stacy Malcolm
is a citizen and resident of Southampton, New Jersey and has a
checking account with Investors.
Defendant Investors Bank is a subsidiary of Investors Bancorp, does
business as "Investors," has assets of approximately $20 billion,
and currently operates over 150 branch locations in New Jersey and
New York, with its headquarters located in Short Hills, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen B. Miller, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5864
INVESTORS MANAGEMENT: Chacon Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP CHACON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INVESTORS MANAGEMENT TRUST REAL ESTATE
GROUP, INC. (dba "IMT"), IMT CAPITAL III DEERFIELD LLC, and IMT
CAPITAL IV ALPHARETTA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01377-SCJ
(N.D. Ga., April 6, 2021) brings this collective action complaint
against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
maintenance technician from approximately November 20, 2019 through
February 2, 2021 in the Defendants' Alpharetta, Georgia location.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly-paid maintenance technicians were classified by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees, and have not guaranteed them
any minimum weekly salaries. However, the Defendants did not
compensate them for all hours they worked, specifically the time
they spent taking calls and travelling to the Defendants' location
to perform assignments outside of their scheduled hours. As a
result, despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, the Defendants failed to pay them overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours they worked over 40 per week, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks from the Defendant the full amount of damages
and liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court deems appropriate.
The Corporate Defendants operate apartment communities and jointly
employed the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid
maintenance technician. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger Orlando, Esq.
THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
315 West Ponce De Leon Ave., Ste 400
Decatur, GA 30030
Tel: (973) 898-0404
E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com
- and –
Lotus Cannon, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Tel: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
jtb@jtblawgroup.com
J&D PIZZA: Coronel Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR CAMILO CORONEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J&D PIZZA RESTAURANT INC., and JOE
VITALE, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01811
(E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around arch
1997 until in or around March 2020 as a cook and cashier.
The Plaintiff claims that although he worked approximately 72 hours
or more per week during his employment with the Defendants, he was
not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay him spread-of-hours pay
at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each worked over 10
hours. In addition, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices
of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements, and failed to
keep payroll records, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and spread of
hours compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court
deems necessary and proper.
J&D Pizza Restaurant Inc. operates a restaurant owned by Joe
Vitale. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
J. M. SMUCKER: Marthaller Suit Moved From E.D. Wash. to W.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIE MARTHALLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY and THE
FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00021, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
April 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00247-BP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged fraud, unjust
enrichment, breach of warranty, and violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act by engaging in false and deceptive
advertising and labeling of their Folgers ground coffee products.
The J. M. Smucker Company is an American manufacturer of jam,
peanut butter, jelly, fruit syrups, beverages, shortening, ice
cream toppings, and other products, with its headquarters and
principal place of business at One Strawberry Lane, Orrville,
Ohio.
The Folger Coffee Company is a coffee products manufacturer with
its headquarters and principal place of business at One Strawberry
Lane, Orrville, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PLLC
1561 Long Haul Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
Telephone: (541) 359-2827
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
J. M. SMUCKER: Thompson Class Suit Moved From E.D. Tex. to W.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GEOFF THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY and THE
FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00009, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April
15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00246-BP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, common law fraud, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by engaging in
false and deceptive advertising and labeling of their Folgers
ground coffee products.
The J. M. Smucker Company is an American manufacturer of jam,
peanut butter, jelly, fruit syrups, beverages, shortening, ice
cream toppings, and other products, with its headquarters and
principal place of business at One Strawberry Lane, Orrville,
Ohio.
The Folger Coffee Company is a coffee products manufacturer with
its headquarters and principal place of business at One Strawberry
Lane, Orrville, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PLLC
1561 Long Haul Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
Telephone: (541) 359-2827
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moreno Sues Over Deceptive OGX Branded Shampoos
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02666
(C.D. Calif., March 26, 2021) is a consumer class action brought
individually by the Plaintiff and on behalf of all persons in the
below-defined proposed Nationwide Class and California Subclass all
of whom purchased one or more OGX branded Shampoo and Conditioner
Products (the Products) for personal or household use, and not for
resale.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased OGX shampoo and
conditioner because of the Defendant's false representation that
the Products would nourish hair for a full, healthy look.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class, and
contrary to the representations on the Products' label, the
Products contain an ingredient or combination of ingredients that
causes significant hair loss and/or scalp irritation upon proper
application. At least one ingredient in the Products, DMDM
hydantoin, is a formaldehyde donor known to slowly leach
formaldehyde after its contact with water. Formaldehyde is a human
carcinogen that is known to cause cancer and other harmful
reactions when absorbed into skin, the suit adds.
The Defendant has used DMDM hydantoin as a preservative in its
products for well over a decade. Allegedly, the use of DMDM
hydantoin as a preservative creates an entirely unnecessary risk
because various safer natural alternatives exist and as a result,
the Products are dangerous and unsafe for sale as over-the-counter
hair smoothing shampoo products.
The Defendant failed to properly warn consumers of the risks and
dangers attendant to the use of such a strong ingredient on their
hair and scalp -- even well after Defendant knew or should have
known of the Products' hazards. The Defendant continued to conceal
the dangers of the Products by failing to appropriately and fully
recall the Products, by continuing to claim the Products were safe
when properly applied, and by failing to warn consumers of the
dangers attendant to the Products' use. Plaintiff and Class Members
were, as reasonable consumers acting reasonably under the
circumstances, unaware of the inclusion of DMDM hydantoin in the
Products and the risks and dangers associated with the use of such
products as to their hair and scalp, the suit asserts.
As a result, the Products' labeling is deceptive and misleading.
The Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, thus bring
claims for consumer fraud and seek damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff Daniel Moreno, is and was at all times relevant to this
matter, a resident of the state of California residing in the city
of Los Angeles.
Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its headquarters
located in New Brunswick, New Jersey. At all times Defendant
manufactured, marketed, designed, promoted and/or distributed the
Products nationwide, including in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
- and -
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
JUUL LABS: Sandys Suit Moved from N.D. Calif. to E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Sandys v. Willard, et al.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-05480, was transferred from the the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond) on March 24,
2021.
The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-00198-DJN to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge David J. Novak.
Plaintiff Sandys brings this action derivatively on behalf of
Nominal Defendant the Altria Group, Inc. the Defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty or aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty to the harm of the Company.
Altria and JUUL have both attempted to cast themselves as socially
responsible companies who promote public health. But the
inconvenient truth for JUUL and for Altria is that, as companies
focused on tobacco-derived, nicotine-delivery products, their
business success depends on addiction to dangerous substances. In
particular, their businesses depend on hooking new generations of
young users, the suit says.
JUUL, a San Francisco-based vaping startup often grouped with tech
companies rather than the traditional consumer product market, saw
a meteoric rise between 2017-2019, fueled by its popularity among
underage users. JUUL claims that it has never targeted, and will
never target, underage users. But its early youth-oriented ads that
were based on youth-oriented tobacco ads from an earlier
generation, placed in media such as Vice Magazine, Cartoon Network,
or nickjr.com, belied this sentiment. So did its heavy promotion of
fruity flavors, its condonation of consumer-generated social media
that made JUUL’s products so popular among teenagers that it
turned JUUL into a verb (vaping a JUUL became known as "Juuling,"),
and its early de-emphasis of nicotine in its marketing, despite the
fact that JUUL actually placed more nicotine into its products than
it disclosed, so that each JUUL pod contained far more nicotine
delivered far more quickly than its claimed equivalent to a pack of
cigarettes.
Altria, owner of the country's dominant brand of cigarettes,
Marlboro, is also popular among the young, even though cigarette
smoking has decreased among underage users. Altria saw that its
traditional combustible cigarettes were declining year by year, and
that its ability to preserve its revenues by raising prices that
its addicted customers could stomach was beginning to wane. It also
tried to enter the e-cigarette or vaping market, and had spent tens
and even hundreds of millions of dollars on trying to create and
sell a popular product. But it had failed.
By 2018, Altria had only between a 4% to 11% share of the vaping
market. Having failed to create its own popular e-cigarette
electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) in-house, it desperately
sought to acquire -- or at least partner with -- another company
with more success in the field.[BN]
Plaintiff Thomas Sandys, on Behalf of Himself and Derivatively on
Behalf of The Altria Group, Inc., is represented by:
Jing-Li Yu, Esq.
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTTSCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jyu@scott-scott.com
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
Plaintiff Maria Cecilia Lorca Derivatively, on Behalf of Altria
Group, Inc., is represented by:
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Emily R. Bishop, Esq.
Shane Palmesano Sanders, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: notice@robbinsllp.com
ebishop@robbinsllp.com
ssanders@robbinsllp.com
- and -
Craig Wallace Smith, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: notice@robbinsllp.com
Defendants Howard A. Willard, III and William F. Gifford, Jr. are
represented by:
Joshua David Nelson Hess, Esq.
Andrew Joshua Levander, Esq.
Jeffrey Alan Brown, Esq.
Melanie Craig MacKay, Esq.
Rani Afif Habash, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
One Bush Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 262-4500
Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
E-mail: joshua.hess@dechert.com
andrew.levander@dechert.com
jeffrey.brown@dechert.com
malanie.mackey@dechert.com
rani.habash@dechert.com
Defendant Kevin C. Crosthwaite is represented by:
Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
Kristin Nicole Murphy, Esq.
Matthew J. Peters, Esq.
Susan E. Engel, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 11th St NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com
kristin.murphy@lw.com
matthew.peters@lw.com
susan.engel@lw.com
Defendant Kevin Burns is represented by:
Eric H. MacMichael, Esq.
KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
633 Battery St
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 773-6624
Facsimile: (415) 391-5400
E-mail: emacmichael@keker.com
Defendants Nicholas J. Pritzker and Riaz Valani are represented
by:
Karl David Belgum, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8409
Facsimile: (866) 222-1493
E-mail: kbelgum@nixonpeabody.com
Defendant Juul Labs, Inc. is represented by:
Joshua Zev Rabinovitz, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (DC-NA)
1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (312) 862-2284
Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
E-mail: joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com
- and -
Austin L. Klar, Esq.
KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2700
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 439-4787
Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
E-mail: austin.klar@kirkland.com
Defendant Altria Group Inc. a Virginia corporation; Nominal
Defendant, is represented by:
Lauren Sachi Wulfe, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP
777 S. Flower Street, 44th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
Telephone: (213) 243-4000
E-mail: Lauren.Wulfe@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Stephen Richard DiPrima, Esq.
Benjamin David Klein, Esq.
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 403-1000
Facsimile: (212) 403-2382
E-mail: srdiprima@wlrk.com
bdklein@wlrk.com
KEMPER CORPORATION: Faces Antonio Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA ANTONIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEMPER CORPORATION; and INFINITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01921 (N.D. Ill., April 9,
2021) is a class action arising out of the recent targeted
cyber-attack against the Defendants that allowed a third party to
access the Defendant Infinity's computer systems and data,
resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive personal
information belonging to thousands of customers, prospective
customers, and employees from Defendants' computer networks (the
"Cyber-Attack").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the
Cyber-Attack, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered
ascertainable injury and damages in the form of the imminent risk
of future harm from their unlawfully accessed and compromised
private and confidential information, including Social Security
numbers, lost value of their private and confidential information,
out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information,
which was entrusted to the Defendants, their officials and agents,
was compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to the
Cyber-Attack, the suit says.
Kemper Corporation is a financial services provider. The Company
specializes in property and casualty, life, health, and accident
insurance products and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
-and-
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: dlietz@masonllp.com
gmason@masonllp.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN MILLSTEIN, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTH COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:21-cv-02623 (C.D.
Calif., March 25, 2021) is a class action lawsuit seeking unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid rest periods and injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, brought on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated
under the California Labor Code.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff on an hourly basis as a
non-exempt employee at the Defendants, County of Los Angeles at
NCCF in Los Angeles County withing the last two years period
preceding the filing of this action. The Defendants no longer
employ Plaintiff as her last day of work with the Defendants was on
May 27, 2019.
County of Los Angeles owns and operates North County Correctional
Facility (NCCF), located in Los Angeles County, California and
operates a jail.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan Selik, Esq.
Christine Zaouk, Esq.
McCATHERN LLP
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 225-6150
Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com
czaouk@mccathernlaw.com
MAGIC LANTERN: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Laquidara Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE LAQUIDARA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLY BRUNELLE, and CHRISTOPHER
BRUNELLE, WEST MASS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a MAGIC LANTERN, and
MARK PESSOLANO, ORANGE LANTERN, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-30039 (D. Mass., April 2, 2021) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Massachusetts
Minimum Wage Law, and the Massachusetts Tips Law.
The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at the Defendants' Magic
Lantern from approximately July 2020 until December 2020.
Despite being classified as employees and initially being promised
that they would receive minimum wage for all hours they worked, the
Plaintiff and other similarly exotic dancers were allegedly not
paid any wages by the Defendants. All their compensation came in
the form of tips and fees paid by the Defendants' customers for
dances they performed. In addition, the Defendants required them to
share their tips to the DJ each night, otherwise the DJ would not
include the dancer in the shift schedule at the club, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated exotic dancers to recover monetary damages from
the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages, reimbursement of all
unlawful withholdings from their wages, together with liquidated
damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Magic Lantern is an establishment where live nude dance
entertainment is presented to adult members of the general public.
Kimberly Brunelle and Christopher Brunelle became owners and
operators since 2020 through the West Mass Management Group, LLC.
Mark Pessolano was the owner and operator prior to 2020, through
the Orange Lantern, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
MANDARICH LAW: Drago Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group
LLP, et al. The case is captioned as Zubic Drago v. Mandarich Law
Group LLP, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02606-VAP-JC (C.D. Cal., March
25, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips.
Mandarich Law Group LLP is a law firm in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Lyons , Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER PA
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
- and -
Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
TATAR LAW FIRM APC
3500 West Olive Avenue Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 744-1146
Facsimile: (323) 967-7775
E-mail: Stephanie@TheTatarLawFirm.com
MDL 2741: Monsanto's Bid for Reconsideration re NBFA Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
2741, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denied Monsanto's motion for
reconsideration of the panel's February 4, 2021, order transferring
the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Defendant Monsanto Company moved for reconsideration of the panel's
order which granted plaintiff's motion to transfer National Black
Farmers Association v. Monsanto Company (C.A. No. 4:20-01145, E.D.
Mo) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California for inclusion in MDL No. 2471. Plaintiff opposed the
motion for reconsideration.
These actions involve common questions of fact arising out of
allegations that Monsanto's and Bayer's herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Like
the plaintiffs in the MDL, plaintiff in said actions asserts
product liability claims against Monsanto and alleges that exposure
causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and share multiple factual issues
with the cases already in the MDL.
Monsanto also argued that transfer of the National Black Farmers
Association case is inappropriate because this action does not fit
easily within the current pretrial structure of MDL No. 2741, such
that it is likely it will have to be placed on its own litigation
track. The panel considered this argument on the initial transfer
motion and rejected it, specifically stating that the transferee
judge has the discretion to employ separate tracks or other
appropriate pretrial management techniques to address the unique
issues presented by the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 1, 2021 order is available at
https://bit.ly/3emBky2
MDL 2804: Three Prescription Opioids Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids, In
Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one action from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and two from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, all
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and
assigning them to Judge Dan A. Polster for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the three actions moved under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the orders conditionally transferring their respective
actions. Defendants Amerisourcebergen Corporation,
Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., McKesson
Corp., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Allergan Finance, LLC, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson opposed the
motions. The panel held that given the undisputed factual overlap
with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified to facilitate the
efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.
These actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, involving allegations that
Defendants' alleged improper marketing and distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into states, cities and towns
across the country.
Despite some variances among the action, the panel indicated that
all share the fact that the manufacturer and distributor
defendants' allegedly knew of the conduct regarding the diversion
of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers'
allegedly improper marketing of the drugs.
Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2QsomXn
MDL 2816: Sterling v. Livanova Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System Products
Liability Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2816, Chairperson Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
has entered an order transferring the case docketed as Sterling, et
al. v. Livanova Holding USA, Inc. (C.A. No. 4:20-04071, S.D. Tex.)
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
and assigned to John E. Jones for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff Thomas Sterling claims that that LivaNova's Sorin 3T
heatercooler system contains defects that leave the device
susceptible to bacterial colonization, resulting in some patients'
exposure to nontuberculous mycobacterium during surgery.
Plaintiff initially moved to vacate, arguing that removal of their
action was improper, and the transferor court should decide on
their motion for remand to state court. However, the panel held
that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an
impediment to transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 1, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2PiTFUc
MDL 3001: Four Casino-Style Games Actions Moved to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit RE: Google Play Store Simulated
Casino-Style Games Litigation, four actions have been transferred
to United States District Court for the Northern District of
California MDL No. 3001, on March 29, 2021.
The member cases are:
-- Valencia-Torres v. Google LLC et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-
01651 (N.D. Ala.);
-- Smith v. Google, LLC et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00194 (S.D.
Miss.);
-- Montoya v. Google LLC et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01098
(D.N.M.)
-- Brown v. Google, LLC et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01311
(N.D.N.Y.).
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware. [BN]
MEDNAX SERVICES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Larsen Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Larsen, as parent/legal guardian on behalf of A.L., and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MEDNAX Services, Inc.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00522-SMB (D.Ariz., March 25, 2021) contends that
Mednax maintained patient personally identifiable information in a
negligent or reckless manner by storing it on its computer network
in a condition it knew or should have known was vulnerable to
cyberattacks, given the multiple prior instances of phishing
attacks on its email accounts, as well as the phishing attack that
led to the Data Breach, as well as failed to disclose that Mednax
did not have adequately robust computer systems and security
practices to safeguard PII.
The Plaintiff alleges that Mednax further failed to properly train
its employees and monitor the computer network and systems that
housed patient PII, in order to timely discover the Data Breach and
implement immediate remedial measures. After discovery, Mednax also
failed to timely and accurately notify Plaintiff and Class members
of the Breach, the Plaintiff adds.
Founded in 1979, Mednax is a physician-led healthcare organization
that partners with hospitals, health care systems, and healthcare
facilities to provide clinical 9 services, revenue cycle
management, and other administrative services.
As part of its business, Mednax allegedly collects substantial
amounts of personal and medical information, including: (a) contact
information such as patient names, guarantor 12 names, addresses,
and email addresses,; (b) personal information such as dates of
birth, 13 Social Security Numbers, driver's license numbers,
government identification numbers, 14 and/or financial account
numbers; (c) health insurance information such as payor names,
payor contract dates, policy information (such as type and
deductible amount), and subscriber/Medicare/Medicaid numbers; (d)
medical and/or treatment information such as dates of service,
locations, services requested and/or procedures performed,
diagnoses, prescription information, physician names, and Medical
Record Numbers; (e) billing and claims information such as
invoices, submitted claims and appeals, and patient account
identifiers used by providers (collectively, "PII").
The Plaintiff and Class members were required, as patients of
Mednax, to provide Mednax with their PII, with the assurance that
such information would be kept confidential and safe from
unauthorized access.
However, on June 19, 2020, Mednax discovered that unauthorized and
unknown third-parties accessed Mednax's business email accounts
through a phishing attack and compromised the security of patients'
PII on or around June 17, 2020. Mednax allowed the access to
continue from June 17, 2020 through June 22, 2020 (the "Data
Breach"), and did not notify affected patients for almost six
months, beginning December 16, 2020.
Subsequently, Mednax revealed that unauthorized third-parties also
accessed Mednax's business email accounts from May 9 through July
6, 2020; October 20, 2019 through April 16, 2020; and October 13,
2015 through March 13, 2020.
As a result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures (including encryption, for example) and prevent
the Data Breach, Plaintiff's and other Class members' PII is now in
the hands of thieves. Plaintiff and Class members have had to
spend, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and
money in an effort to protect themselves from the adverse
ramifications of the Data Breach and will forever be at a
heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, says the suit.
The Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and seeks to compel
Mednax to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices to
safeguard the PII that remains in its custody in order to prevent
incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future.
Plaintiff Joseph Larsen is the parent and legal guardian of a minor
whose initials are A.L., and is a citizen and resident of Phoenix,
Arizona.
Defendant Mednax is a healthcare services provider with a principal
place of business located at 1301 Concord Terrace, Sunrise,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
& BALINT, P.C.
2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
Phoenix AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
claliberte@bffb.com
- and -
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
& BALINT, P.C.
600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 798-4593
E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
- and -
Zach Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 694-0459
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Calhoun Suit v. MDOC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ORLANDUS CALHOUN, et al., Plaintiffs v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-10476 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Robert H. Cleland of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division:
(i) dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims,
except the claims of Plaintiff Calhoun; and
(ii) denied Plaintiff Calhoun's Motion for Appointment of
Counsel and his Motion for Class Certification.
The case is a prisoner civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. The Plaintiffs are 56 prisoners confined at the
Saginaw Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan. Their
complaint alleges that the Michigan Department of Corrections
("MDOC") is taking inadequate steps to protect them from the
Coronavirus Disease.
Judge Cleland opines that dismissal without prejudice of all the
Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Calhoun is justified on several
grounds. First, only two Plaintiffs filed a signed application to
proceed in forma pauperis, and only one Plaintiff paid a portion of
the $350 filing fee or the $52. administrative fee. In addition,
almost half of the Plaintiffs failed to sign the complaint.
Further, allowing multiple prisoner-Plaintiffs to proceed in a
single action also "invites violations of Rule 11(a), which
requires every pleading to be signed by all pro se plaintiffs.
The Court can dismiss misjoined parties from an action, but
misjoinder is generally not sufficient to dismiss an entire case.
Thus, the best option available to the court is to sever Plaintiff
Calhoun's case from the other Plaintiffs' cases. Judge Cleland
will dismiss the remaining 55 Plaintiffs without prejudice. The
Plaintiffs dismissed from the action have the option to file their
individual claims at a later time in separate complaints.
Plaintiff Calhoun appears to be seeking to represent the remaining
Plaintiffs as part of a class action suit. He filed a "Motion for
Certification of Class Action" on Feb. 9, 2021.
Judge Cleland will deny any request by Plaintiff Calhoun or any
other Plaintiff in the case to file a class action. None of these
pro se Plaintiffs can adequately protect the interests of a class.
Numerous cases have held that a prisoner proceeding pro se cannot
represent the interests of his or her fellow inmates in a class
action. Thus, the Judge will deny Plaintiff Calhoun's motion for
class certification.
The Judge will provide Plaintiff Calhoun 30 days from the date of
his Order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must
excise the remaining Plaintiffs dismissed from this lawsuit and
allege facts and constitutional violations that pertain only to
Plaintiff Calhoun.
The Judge will also deny Plaintiff Calhoun's motion for the
appointment of counsel. He says although there is a fundamental
constitutional right to counsel in criminal cases, there is no
constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. A
plaintiff does not have a statutory right to the appointment of
counsel in a federal civil rights case. The motion for appointment
of counsel will be denied.
For these reasons, Judge Cleland dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claims, except the claims of Plaintiff Calhoun.
Plaintiff Calhoun remains a party to the lawsuit. The Judge denied
Plaintiff Calhoun's Motion for Appointment of Counsel and his
Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff Calhoun must file an
amended complaint by May 12, 2021, that excises the remaining
Plaintiffs and addresses only those constitutional violations which
pertain to Plaintiff Calhoun.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vbja3vk from Leagle.com.
MIDEA AMERICA: Faces Sporn Suit Over Omitted Warranty Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SPORN Individually and On Behalf Of Others Similarly
Situated v. MIDEA AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. CGC-21-590503 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., March 25, 2021) is a class action suit
against the Defendant for violations of the California's Song
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Defendant is a manufacturer of kitchen appliances and other
consumer goods and advertises that its products are sold with
express warranties. The Defendant includes within its product
packaging warranty registration cards and also makes its warranty
registration form available online.
The SBA explicitly requires a manufacturer who chooses to provide a
warranty or product registration card or form, or an electronic
online warranty or product registration form, to be completed and
returned by the consumer, to have the card or form include
statements that: Inform the consumer that the card or form is for
product registration; and, Inform the consumer that failure to
complete and return the card or form does not diminish the
individual's warranty rights.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant intentionally omits any
such statements that are expressly required by the SBA. As a result
of the Defendant's alleged unlawful and deceitful business
practices, the Defendant is able to chill warranty claims and
benefit economically by duping consumers into thinking they do not
have warranty rights unless they fill out the form and provide
their personal information to Defendant. Or even worse, consumers
actually do not have the warranties that were promised to them when
they purchased their products as they must now register their
warranties, a requirement that was not disclosed at the time of
purchase. Consumers are thus additionally deceived into purchasing
products they would not have, had they known they did not actually
come with warranties, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff is residing in the County of San Francisco, State of
California. The Plaintiff is a purchaser of the Toshiba 6-Slice
Stainless Steel Convection Toaster 12 Oven (the Product).
Midea America acquired a controlling interest Toshiba Corp. In
2016. The Defendant was engaged in the business of marketing,
supplying, and selling its products through California, including
the Product purchased by the Plaintiff, to the public through a
system of marketers, retailers and distributors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Angelica Sunga, Esq.
Adib Assassi, Esq.
BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
1100 W. Town and Country Rd., Ste 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (800) 500-0301
Facsimile: (800) 500-0301
E-mail: adib@blackoaklaw.com
MISSISSIPPI: Legislators Seek Review of Stallworth Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents Josh Harkins, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Jeffery A. Stallworth v.
Bryant, et al., Case No. 3:16-CV-246, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson.
Mr. Bryant is the Governor of the state of Mississippi.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jeffery A.
Stallworth filed the lawsuit to challenge Senate Bill 2162, a
proposed law that at the time was working its way through the
Mississippi Legislature. His suit claims that SB 2162 will, among
other things, violate his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Mr. Stallworth seeks
monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The district court
affirmed the magistrate judge's grant in part of Plaintiffs' motion
to enforce subpoenas on eight state legislators, ordering them to
produce a privilege log and any relevant information previously
shared with third parties.
In April 2016, the Mississippi Legislature enacted S.B. 2162,
amending the Airport Authorities Law and transferring control of
the airport from the five-member Jackson Municipal Airport
Authority to a new nine-member board, the Jackson Metropolitan Area
Airport Authority. Under the new arrangement, Jackson officials
appoint only two commissioners; the other seven are appointed by
state officials and officials from neighboring counties. That
structure states that: Mississippi law grants every other
municipality exclusive authority to create an airport authority and
appoint its commissioners. Defendant Governor Bryant signed S.B.
2162 on May 4, 2016.
S.B. 2162 was introduced by five of the appellants -- Senators Josh
Harkins, Dean Kirby, Philip Moran, Chris Caughman, and Nickey
Browning. It was referred to a committee chaired by another
appellant, Senator John A. Polk, and then to committees chaired by
appellants Mark Baker and Alex Monsour in the Mississippi House of
Representatives.
On October 5, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Motion to
Substitute Parties. To reflect the current officeholders of
official capacity Defendants Governor and Lt. Governor of the State
of Mississippi, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the Court
orders the following substitutions: as to the Governor of the State
of Mississippi in his official capacity, former Governor Dewey
Phillip "Phil" Bryant is substituted with Governor Tate Reeves; and
as to the Lt. Governor of the State of Mississippi in his official
capacity, former Lt. Governor Tate Reeves is substituted with Lt.
Governor Delbert Hosemann.
Respondents Harkins, et al., are seeking a review of the Court's
Order dated March 15, 2021, granting in part and denying in part a
Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Tate Reeves; granting in part and
denying in part Motion for Reconsideration to enforce subpoenas;
and denying their Motion to Strike.
The appellate case is captioned as Jackson Municipal Airport
Authority v. Harkins, Case No. 21-60312, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2021.[BN]
Respondents-Appellants Josh Harkins, Dean Kirby, Phillip Moran,
Chris Caughman, Nickey Browning, John A. Polk, Mark Baker, and Alex
Monsour are represented by:
Michael Brunson Wallace, Esq.
WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A.
401 E. Capitol Street
Heritage Building
Jackson, MS 39201-2688
Telephone: (601) 968-5500
E-mail: mbw@wisecarter.com
Intervenors-Appellees Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; Board of
Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, each in
his or her official capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of
Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; Doctor
Rosie L. T. Pridgen, in her official capacity as a Commissioner on
the Board of Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport
Authority; Reverend James L. Henley, Jr., in his official capacity
as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the Jackson
Municipal Airport Authority; LaWanda D. Harris, in her official
capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the
Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; Vernon W. Hartley, Sr., in his
official capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners
of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; Evelyn O. Reed, in her
official capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners
of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; Doctor Rosie L. T.
Pridgen, individually as citizens of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; LaWanda D. Harris, individually as citizens of the City
of Jackson, Mississippi, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; Vernon W. Hartley, Sr., individually as
citizens of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Evelyn O. Reed,
individually as citizens of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and James
L. Henley, Jr., individually as citizens of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Fred L. Banks, Jr., Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
4270 I-55, N.
Jackson, MS 39211-6391
Telephone: (601) 360-9356
E-mail: banksf@phelps.com
- and -
Tylvester O. Goss, Esq.
GOSS & WILLIAMS, P.L.L.C.
1441 Lakeover Road
Jackson, MS 39213
Telephone: (601) 981-2800
E-mail: tgoss@dgwlaw.com
ML ENTERPRISE: Reyes Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, WUILMER REYES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ML ENTERPRISES, and MARCO
LEZAMETA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00437-LA (E.D. Wis., April
6, 2021) challenges the Defendants' alleged unlawful payroll
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to perform snow
removal and construction work for the Defendants' clients in the
Milwaukee area.
The Plaintiff claims that although he regular worked more than 40
hour per week for the Defendants, the Defendants paid him below the
minimum wage rate because the Defendants often failed to pay him
some of the straight time wages that he earned for working during a
week by the regular pay date for the week. Moreover, the Defendants
allegedly refused to pay him for any of 55 hours that he worked
during a week in late January 2021 because the truck driven by the
Plaintiff was damaged when it slid off the road due to the icy
conditions. The Plaintiff contends that he never signed an
authorization form that agreed to the Defendants deducting any
wages from him for damaging the salt truck. In addition, the
Plaintiff asserts that he never received additional payments during
four of the days that he worked for the Defendants using his own
truck.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages from the Defendants,
as well as liquidated damages along with all of his attorneys' fees
and litigation costs incurred.
ML Enterprises provides snow removal and construction services.
Marco Lezameta is the owner of ML and responsible for all decisions
as to whether and how much to pay his employees. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Tel: (414) 271-4500
Fax: (414) 271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
MOUNTAIRE CORP: $65-Mil. Settlement in Cuppels Suit Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION, an Arkansas corporation, MOUNTAIRE FARMS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. S18C-06-009 CAK
(Del. Super.), the Superior Court of Delaware entered a Memorandum
Opinion and Order granting the parties' motion for final approval
of their $65 million settlement.
The Town of Millsboro sits on the Indian River in the shadow of the
chicken processing facility a few miles east of it. For many years
the plant was the only facility between Rehoboth and Millsboro. The
plant has been operated by Defendants Mountaire Farms, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and under the auspices of Mountaire Corporation, an
Arkansas corporation (collectively "Defendants" or "MFODI").
In June 2018, Plaintiffs Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels sued the
Defendants in their own right and on behalf of the class of all
similarly-situated persons. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants disposed of contaminated wastewater and liquefied sludge
on lands near the Plaintiffs' residences. The Plaintiffs allege
that this wastewater and sludge have seeped into the groundwater
throughout the area, causing nitrates and other contaminants to
enter the Plaintiffs' drinking water wells, resulting in health
effects and property diminution for a class of individuals living,
working, leasing, or owning property and/or businesses in the area
identified as the "Groundwater Area" set forth on Exhibit A to the
Motion for Approval.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants' wastewater
treatment plant and their spray irrigation and sludge operations
emit air pollutants, including malodorous hydrogen sulfide that
reach the Plaintiffs' residences at levels causing a class of
individuals living, working, leasing, or owning property and/or
businesses in the area identified as the "Air Area" set forth on
Exhibit A to the motion to suffer health effects and to endure
nuisance conditions preventing and devaluing the use of their
properties.
The Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' allegations. Specifically, the
Defendants assert that they are not the cause of nitrate
contamination in residential supply wells and that they did not
emit and are not emitting air pollutants in the nature and quantity
alleged by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants further assert, among
other defenses, that the Plaintiffs cannot establish that the
Defendants' actions are the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs'
injuries. The Defendants have chosen to settle the case in order to
achieve final resolution of this matter and avoid the uncertainty
associated with litigation.
After the filing of the Complaint, the parties litigated numerous
dispositive motions and engaged in preliminary discovery on issues
of class certification and jurisdiction. In August 2019, the Court
granted the parties' request to stay the case while they pursued
mediation. The mediation was not successful.
Following the parties' initial attempt at mediation, the Court
authorized discovery on the merits of the case, and the parties
resumed briefing on class certification and certain dispositive
motions. The parties and the Special Discovery Master implemented
an electronic discovery protocol, and over the following months,
the parties produced and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of
documents. Discovery also involved multiple site inspections both
at the Facility as well as the residences of class members, the
scope and procedures of which were litigated before the Special
Discovery Master.
The parties continued to discuss settlement in 2020, as an
extension of the mediation that began in 2019. Ultimately, in late
2020, they reached agreement and entered into the proposed
Settlement Agreement.
On December 23, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and Other
Relief. In addition to seeking preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement, the Preliminary Approval Motion requested
that the Court (1) preliminarily certify the settlement class; (2)
appoint class representatives; (3) appoint Plaintiffs' counsel as
Class Counsel; (4) designate RG/2 as Claims Administrator; (5)
approve and order the implementation of a proposed Notice Plan; (6)
establish a procedure for objections to the Settlement Agreement;
(7) establish a procedure for opt-outs from the Settlement
Agreement; (8) set a bar date for the submission of claims; and (9)
schedule a briefing schedule and date for a fairness hearing to
consider final approval of Settlement Agreement.
On January 11, 2021, the Court granted the Preliminary Approval
Motion.
Following preliminary approval, Class Counsel directed class notice
through RG/2 Claims Group pursuant to the Court-approved notice
plan. The notice campaign was robust. RG/2 Claims mailed the Notice
to 6,720 Class Members identified via property records. Further,
the Class Counsel engaged in a publication notice campaign, which
included advertisements in multiple newspapers, as well as a press
release that generated news coverage in multiple media outlets.
Class Members were also provided with a toll-free number and an
informative website to obtain case-related documents and further
information regarding the proposed Settlement
(www.mountairesettlement.com).
Class Member response has been overwhelmingly positive. Since the
initiation of notice, over 3,000 Class Members have registered
claims. No Class Members are objecting to the Settlement Agreement.
Four individuals filed letters styled as objections. The
individuals are not in the class as Plaintiffs.
The parties now seek final approval of the Settlement Agreement and
other related relief necessary to implement the terms of this
settlement.
Terms of Settlement Agreement
The proposed Settlement Agreement requires the Defendants to pay
$65 million cash in full satisfaction of the Plaintiffs' claims,
including all legal fees, costs, and expenses (including costs and
expenses of administering the settlement fund). The payment is
required to be made in two installments: one payment of $55 Million
by December 31, 2020, and a second payment of $10 Million by
December 31, 2022. The Defendants have already made the first
payment, which is held by an independent escrow agent pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement.
Contemporaneously with the filing of the Motion, the Plaintiffs
have moved for the establishment of a Qualified Settlement Fund
("QSF") to receive the settlement proceeds ("QSF Motion"). The QSF
will be funded with those proceeds currently held in escrow pending
approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement and the entry of the
First Amended Consent Decree in the Federal Case, as well as the
second payment due at the end of this year. Following this Court's
approval of the QSF Motion, the QSF will be allocated and amounts
will be distributed to Class Members in accordance with the
Allocation Plan described briefly below and further detailed in
Exhibit C to the motion. Legal fees, costs, expenses, and any liens
will likewise be subject to the approval of this Court prior to
payment from the QSF.
Settlement Class Definition
The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is as follows:
All Persons who, on or after May 1, 2000, owned, leased,
resided on, or were employed on a full-time basis at:
(a) property located in whole or part within the Groundwater
Area, which is geographically bounded by the solid blue line
on Exhibit A, and not the Air Area, which is bounded by the
dashed red line on Exhibit A; (b) property located in whole
or part within the Air Area, but not the Groundwater Area;
and (c) property located in whole or part within both the
Groundwater Area and the Air Area.
The Groundwater Area has been defined as the area overlying the
groundwater contamination plumes alleged to have been caused in
whole or in part by the Defendants. The Groundwater Area was
developed by the Plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Harvey Cohen, a
hydrogeologist with more than 20 years of contaminant fate and
transport experience. Dr. Cohen reviewed dozens of reports and
models related to the groundwater near the Defendants' facilities
and plotted nitrate and water levels in hundreds of monitoring and
residential wells upgradient and downgradient of the Defendants'
spray irrigation and sludge fields. Based on hundreds of hours of
analysis and groundwater "particle tracking" by Dr. Cohen and his
colleagues at S.S. Papadopoulos & Associates, Dr. Cohen would
testify that this area has been or soon will be impacted by the
Defendants. Dr. Cohen's report describing the methodology utilized
to reach these conclusions is included as Exhibit D to the motion.
As to the Air Area, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' conduct
caused multiple exceedances of the Delaware Air Quality Standard
for hydrogen sulfide and exceedances of the health standard
established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
("ASTDR") for ammonia and other air pollutants that, in the
aggregate, are believed to be sufficient to potentially affect
human health or cause property damage. The Air Area of potential
hydrogen sulfide air exposure has been modeled by John Purdum, an
expert in Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") air modeling
techniques, based on EPA modeling protocols and emissions. Mr.
Purdum's report describing the methodology utilized to reach these
conclusions is included as Exhibit E to the Motion. Glen Adams'
report describing how Mr. Purdum's calculations were used to
generate the class map is attached as Exhibit F to the Motion.
As set forth in the accompanying declaration of the Plaintiffs'
expert in medical toxicology, William Meggs, M.D., attached as
Exhibit G to the Motion, the Air Area encompasses the area over
which Class Members could have been exposed to hydrogen sulfide
emissions from the Defendants' operations sufficient to cause
health effects, to a reasonable degree of medical probability.
Those outside this area would not, to a reasonable degree of
medical probability, have been exposed to sufficient levels of
pollutants from the Defendants' operations to permit Dr. Meggs to
conclude that those individuals suffered health effects as a result
of the Defendants' operations. Additionally, as described in the
declaration of the Plaintiffs' expert in property diminution, Ken
Acks, attached as Exhibit H to the Motion, the Air Area also
encompasses all properties that could, to a reasonable degree of
probability, have experienced a diminution of property value as a
result of the Defendants' emissions.
Allocation of Settlement Proceeds
The Plaintiffs have proposed that a Claims Adjudicator be retained
for the allocation of the proceeds of the Settlement Agreement.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs have proposed, and the Defendants have
consented to, the Hon. Irma Raker (Ret.) serving as Claims
Adjudicator.
The Plaintiffs further request the continued appointment of RG/2 as
Claims Administrator. RG/2 will assist Judge Raker in the
administration of the settlement program, including issuing
necessary mailings, data entry, developing and maintaining access
to databases, managing documents provided in support of claims, and
providing other services necessary to implement the settlement
program. An estimate of RG/2 fees in connection with this service
is provided within Exhibit B to the motion.
The Federal Case
There is a pending matter in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware that relates to the proposed Settlement
Agreement: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control v. Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.
1:18-cv-00838 MN-JLH ("Federal Case"). The Cuppels, individually,
and Plaintiffs' Counsel have been engaged in litigation as
intervenors before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware in the Federal Case. The Federal Case involves claims
raised by DNREC against Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc. ("MFODI")
under federal law related to alleged violations and contamination
at the Facility. The claims at issue in the Federal Case are
premised on some of the same operative factual allegations as the
claims in this matter.
In the Federal Case, DNREC and MFODI entered into a proposed
consent decree, and then a First Amended Agreement and Proposed
Consent Decree that requires MFODI to (a) make certain Facility
improvements to prevent future groundwater contamination; and (b)
engage in certain efforts to remove existing nitrate contamination
from the groundwater, among other terms and conditions. The
Cuppels, as intervenors in the Federal Case, raised objections to
the Consent Decree as originally proposed as well as the First
Amended Consent Decree. The Cuppels also moved for a preliminary
injunction in the Federal Case, seeking a suspension or curtailment
of MFODI operations.
Contemporaneously with the settlement of the class action case, the
Cuppels intervenors and MFODI have entered into a separate
confidential settlement agreement in the Federal Case to resolve
the intervenors' claims in that case, including its motion for
preliminary injunction and its opposition to the First Amended
Consent Decree. Pursuant to that agreement, intervenors anticipate
that they will withdraw their objections and ask the Federal Court
to enter the First Amended Consent Decree, and that MFODI will be
required to engage in certain additional activities to prevent
future harm to the groundwater and provide residents an avenue to
report and receive follow-up on air pollution complaints.
The Parties estimate that the aggregate value of MFODI's
commitments, including under the First Amended Consent Decree, is
expected to be approximately $120 million for incurred and
contracted costs, exclusive of long-term operation and maintenance
and contingencies that the intervening Cuppels value at an
additional $20 million. These remedies are not included as part of
the Settlement Agreement in this matter, and Intervenors' Counsel
(Class Counsel here) will not be requesting a legal fee, costs, and
expenses for the Federal Case in connection with this resolution of
this matter, as the legal fees, costs, and expenses related to the
Federal Case have been separately negotiated.
Payment of the Settlement Amount in the case is contingent on entry
of the First Amended Consent Decree (or any successor thereof) in
the Federal Case, which is anticipated to occur shortly following
final approval of this Settlement Agreement, if approved, if not
sooner. The Defendants will not be entitled to a return of any
portion of the Settlement Amount if both the proposed Settlement
Agreement is finally approved and the First Amended Consent Decree
is approved and entered in the Federal Case. However, if the Court
does not enter final approval of the Settlement Agreement, if the
Court's final approval of the Settlement Agreement is overturned on
appeal, or if the First Amended Consent Decree is not entered in
the Federal Case, the Settlement Amount will be returned to the
Defendants, together with any interest or other gains that have
accrued on each of their respective contributions, less permissible
notice and administrative expenses incurred subsequent to
preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement.
The Notice Plan
The Court approved Plaintiffs' proposed Notice Plan, finding it was
consistent with the Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 23(c)(2),
represented the best practicable notice under the circumstances,
and was reasonably calculated to apprise Class Members of the facts
of this litigation and their rights with respect to the Settlement
Agreement.
Class Counsel complied with the Court's Order by directly mailing
notice of the proposed Settlement to over 6,720 current and former
residents within the Class Area. Similarly, Class Counsel provided
publication Notice through newsprint advertisements and an internet
site in a manner consistent with the Notice Plan. Having provided
Notice to the Class Members in the manner directed by the Court,
the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e). The Court
finds that Class Counsel provided sufficient notice of the
Settlement Agreement to Class Members.
Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Class Counsel requests that the Court approves payment of the
litigation expenses and attorneys' fee of 25% of the settlement
amount. This level percentage fee is consistent with, and at the
low end of the standard in tort cases.
Judge Graig A. Karsnitz notes that the Class Counsel worked
diligently and professionally to bring about what to me is a
remarkable result. They faced formidable opposition who contested
everything, at least one time in a way that, for me, was beyond
reasonable boundaries. The Court wrote no less than ten (10) full
opinions on important and potentially case dispositive issues. He
states that one of the most important factors in reviewing and
awarding attorneys' fees is if the attorneys cannot take on other
work because of the requirements of the case for which fees are
sought. He points out that he observes Class Counsels' efforts, and
that he doubts they have been able to work on much else but this
case over the past three years. The Judge awards the full fee
requested.
Class Representative Bonus
For similar reasons Judge Karsnitz grants the class
representatives' modest request for additional compensation. The
class representatives led the class appropriately. They expended
many additional hours of effort to achieve the result. Their
request is a very small portion of the settlement. Judge Karsnitz
says the small reward is appropriate.
The Qualified Settlement Fund
The Plaintiffs asked the Court to approve the Qualified Settlement
Fund (QSF) consistent with Federal law; including tax law. Creation
of the fund is consistent with the best interests of the class, and
the administration of the settlement proceeds. Judge Karsnitz
approves it.
The "Gag" Order
The Court entered two orders limiting the parties' ability to
publicly discuss the case in the media and elsewhere. The orders
were entered for good reasons as stated in companion opinions.
Judge Karsnitz does not believe given the settlement and the
current posture of the case the reasons for the orders any longer
exist. Judge Karsnitz is withdrawing the orders. He will be signing
additional orders necessary to approve the settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
April 12, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/27rx39tz from
Leagle.com.
Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq., -- chase@bmbde.com -- and Stephen A.
Spence, Esq. -- sws@bmbde.com -- Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, at 1413
Savannah Road, Ste. 1, in Lewes, Delaware 19958, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.
Philip C. Federico, Esq., and Brent Ceryes, Esq., Schochor,
Federico and Staton, P.A., at 1211 Paul Street, in Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
F. Michael Parkowski, Esq. -- mparkowski@pgslegal.com -- and
Michael W. Teichman, Esq. -- mteichman@pgslegal.com -- Parkowski,
Guerke & Swayze, P.A., at 1105 North Market Street, 19th Floor, in
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys for Defendants.
Lisa C. McLaughlin, Esq. -- lcm@pgmhlaw.com -- Todd L. Goodman,
Esq., and John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq. -- jcp@pgmhlaw.com --
Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., at 1200 North Broom
Street, in Wilmington, Delaware 19806, Attorneys for Defendants.
James R. Wedeking, Esq. -- jwedeking@sidley.com -- Timothy K.
Webster, Esq. -- twebster@sidley.com -- Gordon D. Todd, Esq. --
gtodd@sidley.com -- Erika L. Maley, Esq. -- emaley@sidley.com --
and Daniel J. Hay, Esq. -- dhay@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, LLP,
at 1501 K Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C. 20005, Attorney for
Defendants.
MULTIPLAN CORP: Faces Franchi Suit Over Unfair Merger Process
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN CORP. f/k/a CHURCHILL CAPITAL
CORP. III; MICHAEL KLEIN; JAY TARAGIN; JEREMY PAUL ABSON; GLENN R.
AUGUST; MARK KLEIN; MALCOLM S. McDERMID; KAREN G. MILLS; MICHAEL
ECK; M. KLEIN and COMPANY, LLC; CHURCHILL SPONSOR III, LLC; and THE
KLEIN GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2021-300 (Del. Ch., April 9,
2021) is an action arising from breach of fiduciary duty claims
stemming from the Company's merger (the "Merger") with Polaris
Parent Corp. ("MultiPlan").
According to the complaint, the transaction triggering entire
fairness review arose from a deeply flawed and unfair process,
including severe disclosure defects, and resulted in a grossly
mispriced transaction, the entire fairness standard will not be
satisfied, giving aggrieved stockholders the right to judicial
recompense.
In structuring Churchill Capital Corp. III, the Defendants used the
full panoply of tools that gave the Company's board of directors
(the "Board") strong incentives to get a deal done—any
deal—without regard to whether it is truly in the best interest
of the special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") outside
investors (i.e., whether the target private company is actually a
good investment).
The massive windfalls available to Sponsor and the Board separate
from any benefit to stockholders created a clear conflict of
interest with respect to any proposed deal, thus warranting entire
fairness review of any deal. Critically, those conflicting
interests manifested themselves in the Company's October 2020
acquisition of MultiPlan, a data analytics provider for healthcare
companies and consumers, the suit says.
To be sure, the founder shares, held mainly by M. Klein but still
giving the Board members multi-million-dollar windfalls, cost M.
Klein just $25,000 yet were worth over $300 million upon the
Merger's closing, representing a personal return on investment of
1,219,900%. Less than 10% of the Company's outside investors
redeemed their shares before the Merger closed on October 7, 2020.
The unlucky investors who believed the Board's disclosures and put
their faith in M. Klein's skills and abilities received a rude, but
prompt, awakening, added the suit.
Barely a month after the Merger closed, a market research report by
Muddy Waters LLC ("Muddy Waters") about MultiPlan publicly
disclosed, for the first time, both the loss of UHC's business and
the effective cratering of MultiPlan's financial position.
MultiPlan Corporation provides software solutions. The Company
offers cost management solutions with payment integrity, healthcare
networks, and data analytics services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3601
-and-
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Andrew Blumberg, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
-and-
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 258-1585
NATHANSON LAW: Kaur Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Nathanson Law
Firm, LLP. The case is styled as Gursimran Kaur, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Nathanson Law
Firm, LLP, Case No. 2:21-cv-02142 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Nathanson Law Firm LLP -- https://www.nathansonlaw.com/ --
provides knowledgeable representation in the areas of debt
collection, enforcement of judgments, and transactional matters,
including those involving estate planning, residential real
property, and small business law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Canale Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Canale, II, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, University of Rochester, Case No. 6:21-cv-06257, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 19, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02050 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization that
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL STEEL: Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DREW MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING
COMPANY and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2021-00003396-CU-OECTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 15,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00665-BEN-LL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to pay wages when due, and unfair
competition.
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company is an American shipbuilding
company with three shipyards in the U.S. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Joseph Connaughton, Esq.
Evan A. Pena, Esq.
Kelly E. Kagan, Esq.
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-8285
Telephone: (619) 237-5200
Facsimile: (619) 615-0700
E-mail: jconnaughton@paulplevin.com
epena@paulplevin.com
kkagan@paulplevin.com
NEVADA: Vidal Ordered to Complete IFP Application in Suit v. NDOC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCISCO VIDAL, SANDRA SCHARAS, BRITTANY PAUGH,
Plaintiff v. DOUGLAS HERNDON, MARY KAY HULTHUS, CYNTHIA SOUCHAK,
BENJAMIN NADIG, STEVE SISOLAK, SHERIFF JOE LOMBARDO, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00442-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Elayna
J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
orders the Clerk of the Court to send the Plaintiff the approved
form application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner, as
well as the document entitled information and instructions for
filing an in forma pauperis application.
On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Vidal, a former inmate of and now
released from the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"),
submitted a Class Action Civil Rights Complaint listing two
Plaintiffs other than himself. Since the filing, the Plaintiff has
neither paid the $402 filing fee nor filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis, which he must do pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(a)(1) and the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada Local Rule LSR 1-1 if he wishes to proceed without paying
the mandatory filing fee. Further, the Plaintiff is advised that a
person acting pro se may not represent other individuals in a
lawsuit.
Because the Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted an
in forma pauperis application, the Court will retain, but not file
the Plaintiff's Complaint until he timely pays the $402 filing fee
or files a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for a
non-prisoner.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Youchah orders the Clerk of the Court
to send the Plaintiff the approved form application to proceed in
forma pauperis by a non-prisoner, as well as the document entitled
information and instructions for filing an in forma pauperis
application.
By May 10, 2021, the Plaintiff will either: (1) file a fully
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by a
non-prisoner, in compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a) and LSR
1-1; or (2) pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action (which
includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee).
If the Plaintiff does not timely comply with her Order, Magistrate
Judge Youchah will recommend dismissal of the action without
prejudice.
The Clerk of Court will retain the Complaint, but will not file it
at this time.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/8mer9chz from Leagle.com.
NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Miner Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY MINER v. NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00694-JPC (N.D. Ohio, March 29, 2021) is a collective
action resulting from the Defendant's practices and policies of not
paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees, for all hours worked, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.
The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a press operator from
October 2013 to December 2020 in Mansfield, Ohio. Other
similarly-situated employees were employed by the Defendant as
manufacturing employees, in positions that included but were not
limited to machine operators and associates.
The Defendant is a manufacturer of automotive exhaust systems,
frames, and trim products and has operations in Mansfield Ohio,
South Carolina, and Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
David J. Steiner, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
david@lazzarolawfirm.com
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Eliason Suit Over Defective Automobile CVTs
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA ELIASON and WAYNE BALNICKI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN
MOTOR CO., LTD., Case No. 3:21-cv-00263 (M.D. Tenn., March 26,
2021) alleges that the model year 2014–16 Nissan Rogue and
2015-16 Pathfinder (the Class Vehicles) -- and likely additional
vehicles and model years designed, manufactured, and distributed by
Nissan -- contain defective continuously variable transmissions
(CVTs).
Allegedly, the defect causes delays in acceleration, stalling while
driving at speed, jerking, lurching, "juddering," and/or shaking.
The defect can also lead to premature wear and total transmission
failure, and often presents serious safety concerns to drivers.
According to the complaint, Nissan has known about the defect in
its CVTs for years, but rather than admitting there is a problem
and fixing it in the Class Vehicles, Nissan has denied the
existence of the defect, issued numerous TSBs intended to mitigate
but not solve the problem, extended warranties in a piecemeal
fashion for other model years and vehicles, and continued
advertising and selling vehicles that contain the defective CVT
transmission.
In fact, Nissan has previously settled class actions concerning
similarly defective CVTs in 2012-2017 model year Versa and
2014-2017 Versa Note vehicles, 2013-2016 Nissan Altimas, 2013-2017
Sentras, and 2013-2014 Pathfinders.
Plaintiff Andrea Eliason is a Utah citizen who resides in Lehi,
Utah. She purchased her 2016 Nissan Rogue from Tim Dahle Nissan in
South Jordan, Utah, in March 2016. She paid approximately $37,000
for the vehicle, which is equipped with the defective CVT. At the
time of purchase, the vehicle and its transmission were still
covered by the manufacturer's warranty.
Ms. Eliason was promised by the Nissan dealer that the vehicle did
not have transmission problems. Since purchasing her 2016 Rogue,
the Plaintiff Eliason has often been scared for her own safety and
the safety of her family while driving. regular service of the
vehicle, including its transmission, the vehicle frequently jerks
unsafely. She has had to pull over to the side of the road many
times in hopes that turning the vehicle off then on again might
resolve the problem, but to no lasting effect. Had Nissan or its
dealers disclosed the defective CVT transmission or its
safety-related symptoms, the Plaintiff would not have purchased the
vehicle or would have paid considerably less for it, added the
suit.
Meanwhile, Plaintiff Wayne Balnicki, a Colorado citizen, also
purchased his 2015 Nissan Pathfinder from Valley Nissan in
Longmont, Colorado, in 2015. He paid approximately $37,350 for the
vehicle, which is equipped with the defective CVT. At the time of
purchase, the vehicle and its transmission were still covered by
the manufacturer's warranty. Since purchasing his 2015 Pathfinder,
Balnicki has experienced an intermittent shudder. Had Nissan or its
dealers disclosed the defective CVT transmission or its
safety-related symptoms, the Plaintiff would not have purchased the
vehicle or would have paid considerably less for it.
Nissan North America, Inc. is incorporated in California but has
its principal place of business at One Nissan Way, Franklin,
Tennessee, 37067. Nissan North America designs, manufactures,
markets, warrants, and distributes Nissan vehicles, such as the
Class Vehicles, throughout the United States. It is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., is incorporated in Japan and his its
principal place of business there. Nissan Motor Co. designs,
manufactures, markets, warrants, and distributes Nissan vehicles
globally. It also works closely with its CVT transmission supplier,
Jatco Ltd., to design and implement CVTs for Nissan vehicles,
including the Class Vehicles. Jatco Ltd. is also a Japanese
corporation and a Nissan Motor Co. Subsidiary.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Ste 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: 615-254-8801
Facsimile: 615-255-5419
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
beng@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Douglas Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued
an order granting motion to dismiss in the lawsuit captioned Eric
Douglas, Plaintiff v. Norwegian Cruise Lines and others,
Defendants, Case No. 20-21107-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.).
Lead Plaintiff Employer-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension
Trust Fund brings the putative class action against Defendants
Norwegian Cruise Lines ("NCL"), Frank J. Del Rio, and Mark A.
Kempa, on behalf of all investors, who purchased NCL common stock
between February 20, 2020, to March 10, 2020. The Plaintiff's
two-count amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of the
Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions regarding the impact
of Covid-19 on the company.
NCL is a cruise line company with headquarters in Miami, Florida.
The Company's stock is publicly traded on the New York Stock
Exchange. During the class period, NCL employed Defendant Del Rio
as CEO and Defendant Kempa as CFO. Harry Sommer was president of
NCL and reported directly to Del Rio. Robert Becker acted as NCL's
vice president of consumer research and passenger sales. Becker
reported directly to Sommer.
Near the end of 2019, NCL reported revenue growth from the previous
year and rising earnings per share. However, that changed in
December 2019 when Covid-19 began spreading globally, including one
outbreak on a cruise ship owned by a different company.
Consequently, NCL began to see a decrease in bookings and an
increase in cancellations. Ultimately, NCL was forced to cancel 40
voyages.
On February 20, 2020 (the first day of the class period), NCL
issued a press release announcing results of the fourth quarter and
year ending on December 31, 2019. The 2019 financial disclosures
were intended to serve as an investor guidance for 2020. NCL also
represented that it had entered 2020 "with a record booked position
at higher pricing," and assured investors that "despite the current
known impact from Covid-19, the Company's booked position remained
ahead of the prior year and at higher prices on a comparable
basis." NCL also represented that it was taking protective steps to
ensure the safety of passengers and crew.
On that same day, NCL held a conference call for analysts and
investors to discuss the Company's finances and projections. The
call was led by Del Rio, who acknowledged that news coverage on the
spread of Covid-19 and the outbreak on an unrelated cruise ship had
caused a decrease in bookings and cancellations. Del Rio further
stated that despite the negative impacts from Covid-19, NCL had
experienced an increase in bookings within the previous five days
compared to the prior three weeks. Del Rio stated that NCL would
continue with its marketing strategy of offering lower prices to
encourage advance bookings. Del Rio reassured investors that NCL
would not act in a manner that would hurt the NCL brand. Kempa
shared that sentiment, expressing that NCL would "do right" by its
shareholders and protect the equity of the NCL brands. Based on Del
Rio and Kempa's representations during the conference call,
analysts were cautiously optimistic about NCL's finances in 2020.
One week later, NCL filed its Form 10-K with the Securities
Exchange Commission for 2019. The form was executed by Del Rio and
Kempa, certifying that the information therein was accurate to
their knowledge. The form indicated that NCL intended to utilize
effective marketing and sales initiatives with a market-to-fill
strategy to drive up consumer demand. With respect to NCL's
operating procedures, NCL reported it would continue practicing
techniques to ensure the safety of guests and crew members. NCL
also identified a list of risk factors for potential and current
investors, which included "the recent outbreak of COVID-19
coronavirus which has resulted in costs and lost revenue related to
customer compensation, itinerary modifications, travel restrictions
and advisories, the unavailability of ports and/or destinations,
cancellations, and redeployments and has impacted consumer
sentiment regarding cruise travel."
On March 11, 2020, the Miami New Times, a local newspaper,
published an article titled: "Leaked Emails: Norwegian Pressures
Sales Team to Mislead Potential Customers About Coronavirus." The
article reported a whistleblower employee's account that NCL
instructed its sales staff to lie to customers regarding the risks
of Covid-19 in order to increase booking sales. NCL circulated an
email to sales staff including "one liners" to help convince
customers who are unsure about booking a cruise. The email
indicated that the statements should only be used if a customer was
concerned with the coronavirus.
The Miami New Times article was followed by other unfavorable
publications in the Washington Post and the Miami Herald. The Miami
Herald reported that "senior vice president in the marketing
department Bob Becker repeatedly downplayed the virus to
employees," including an email expressing that "[n]o one knows or
cares about the coronavirus." The article also indicated that
Sommer and "other executives" were copied on the email containing
the scripted one-liners. Around the same time, customers posted
negative reviews on websites like www.consumeraffairs.com.
As a result of the negative press, NCL common stock fell by
approximately 27% on March 11, 2020, and by 36% on March 12, 2020.
The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on behalf of all
persons, who purchased NCL shares from February 20, 2020 (the date
of the press release and conference call) and March 10, 2020 (the
day before The Miami New Times Article was published). The
operative complaint alleges that NCL used a deceptive marketing
scheme to increase bookings despite the growing health concerns
related to Covid-19. The Amended Complaint claims NCL, Del Rio, and
Kempa committed securities fraud because despite knowing the
negative impacts and dangers of Covid-19, the Defendants carried
out deceptive sales practices, which resulted in a loss to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated shareholders.
The Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint based on
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). The Defendants moved to
dismiss arguing that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of
securities fraud. In particular, they argue that the Plaintiff has
failed to allege any material misrepresentations or omissions, and
scienter. The Plaintiff filed a response in opposition.
While all of the allegations of the operative complaint should be
taken into consideration to determine whether or not they give rise
to a strong inference of scienter, the Plaintiff must still allege
with particularity the specific facts that underlie each alleged
misstatement, misrepresentation, or omissions, District Judge
Robert N. Scola, Jr., opines, citing In re Royal Caribbean Cruises
Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 1:11-22855-CIV, 2013 WL 3295951, at *11 (S.D.
Fla. Apr. 19, 2013) (Williams, J.).
Judge Scola holds that the Plaintiff has not met its burden at this
stage. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
Judge Scola explains that the Plaintiff fails to plead
misstatements or omissions. Here, all the challenged statements
constitute corporate puffery because they are vague and so broad
that no reasonable investor would have relied on them to make a
decision on whether to invest or not.
The Plaintiff argues that the challenged statements were false or
misleading because they omitted material facts, namely, that NCL
was engaged in a deceptive sales campaign to induce customers to
purchase stock and book trips. The Plaintiff explains that the
Defendants' statements regarding the company's bookings gave rise
to a duty to disclose the deceptive marketing techniques.
Considering the Defendants' undisputed acknowledgement of the
pandemic's impact on bookings during the conference call, press
release, and Form 10-K, no reasonable investor would believe that a
statement regarding a brief window of improvement in bookings
during a global pandemic implied that all was well within the
company and that its marketing strategies were not accounting for
customer concerns regarding Covid-19, Judge Scola opines.
The Court also finds that the Plaintiff's allegations with respect
to scienter are insufficient to survive the subject motion to
dismiss. Although the Plaintiff's allegations, if accepted as true
as the Court must, demonstrate a troublesome and widespread scheme
to minimize the effects of Covid-19 in order to avoid cancellations
and drive bookings, the allegations are insufficient to show that
the Defendants had the requisite intent to deceive or defraud,
Judge Scola adds.
For the reasons discussed, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
granted. The Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend in its response
in opposition, nor has he filed a motion to that effect since the
filing of the subject motion. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to
close this case and deny any pending motions as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 12, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/swfx5pdw from Leagle.com.
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Securities Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE BARNEY,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NOVA LIFESTYLE, INC., THANH H. LAM, YA MING WONG, JEFFERY CHUANG,
and YUEN CHING HO, Case No. 2:18-cv-10725-TJH-AFM (C.D. Calif.),
the Lead Plaintiffs Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV Dienstleistungs
GmbH and named plaintiff Daniel Miles will move the Court for an
order granting their Motion for Class Certification.
The motion seeks class certification on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased Nova
LifeStyle, Inc. securities between December 3, 2015 and December
20, 2018, both dates inclusive.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint each of them as
class representatives and appoint Court-appointed Lead Counsel The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as class counsel.
Nova Lifestyle Inc. Nova Lifestyle, Inc. designs, manufactures and
sells modern home furniture for middle class and urban consumers in
diverse markets worldwide.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 9,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v9GSm5
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
NURTURE INC: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Skibicki Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANIE SKIBICKI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NURTURE INC., D/B/A HAPPY FAMILY ORGANICS;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-02553 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 24, 2021) is a class action against Nurture based on the
Defendant's misleading, deceptive and unfair business practices
with respect to the marketing, advertising, labeling, packaging and
sale of its baby food products, which contain levels of toxic heavy
metals.
The case involves a straightforward and systematic course of false,
misleading, and unlawful conduct: the Defendant has misrepresented
and falsely advertised that the baby food products it sells are
organic, nutritious, high quality, and safe for consumption by
infants and young children, the suit says.
Parents and other caregivers, including the Plaintiff and members
of the Class and Subclasses, reasonably believe that the baby food
they purchase will be healthy, nutritious, and free from harmful
substances and contaminants. However, on February 4, 2021, the
United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and
Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform ("Subcommittee")
published a report ("Subcommittee Report"), revealing its findings
that numerous baby foods, including those manufactured by the
Defendant Nurture, are "tainted with significant levels of toxic
heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury."
Given the health risks associated with the consumption of high
levels of toxic heavy metals, the presence of these substances is
material to consumers.
Defendant Nurture knew that the presence of toxic heavy metals in
its baby food products was material to consumers, which is
evidenced by its representations that it screens many ingredients
for heavy metals before it agrees to purchase or use them. Yet the
Defendant chose to omit and conceal that its baby food products
contained, or were at risk of containing, levels of heavy toxic
metals, and therefore deceptively misled the Plaintiff and members
of the Classes that purchased these products in reliance on
Nurture's representations, added the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks for breach of express and implied warranty,
fraud by omission, intentional and negligent misrepresentation,
quasi contract, unjust enrichment, and restitution, and for
violations of Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and
Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act.
Plaintiff Tiffanie Skibicki is a citizen of the State of Minnesota
and is a member of the Nationwide Class and the Minnesota Subclass.
The Plaintiff purchased Nurture's HappyBaby baby food jars in the
flavors Carrots and Sweet Potatoes.
Defendant Nurture does business throughout the United States, and
formulates, manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and
sells baby food products online and at brick-and-mortar retail
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, Floor 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: 412-322-9243
Facsimile: 412-231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown
Michael A. Tompkins
Brett R. Cohen
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
ORAMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Felice Securities Suit Over 2019 Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE DE FELICE v. NADAV KIDRON, MIRIAM KIDRON, LEONARD SANK, AVIAD
FRIEDMAN, XIAOMING GAO, ARIE MAYER, KEVIN RAKIN, JOSHUA HEXTER,
AVRAHAM GABAY, and ORAMED PHARMACEUTICALS INC Defendants, and
ORAMED PHARMACEUTICALS INC., a Delaware Corporation, Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 2021-0255 (Del. Ch., March 24, 2021) is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff, other Oramed stockholders, and the
Company to correct Oramed's board of directors disregard of the
Company's Amended and Restated By-laws (the Bylaws) and recover
over 1.3 million shares of Company stock that the Board improperly
awarded its members, executives, and others, purportedly under
Oramed's Amended and Restated 2019 Stock Incentive Plan (the "2019
Plan"), despite the fact that the Company's stockholders did not
approve the adoption of the 2019 Plan or its amendment in 2020.
On August 6, 2019, the Company filed a Schedule 14A proxy statement
with the SEC (the "2019 Proxy") in which the Company solicited
stockholder approval of the adoption of the 2019 Plan (the "2019
Plan Proposal").
On September 5, 2019, Oramed filed a Form 8-K Current Report
announcing that "[t]he stockholders approved the 2019 Plan as
described in the Proxy Statement." The Company then proceeded to
issue its members and Company executives equity awards under the
2019 Plan. In truth, however, the 2019 Plan was not approved, the
suit contends.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff brings claims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment to void
the 2019 Plan, 2020 Plan Amendment, 2020 Director Elections, and
otherwise remedy the harm resulting from the Company's wrongful
tabulation of stockholders' votes and improper adoption of the
Failed Proposals. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks disgorgement
and/or cancellation of the over 1.3 million shares that the Company
issued, primarily to its members and executives of the Company,
under the 2019 Plan. Because neither the 2019 Plan nor the 2020
Plan Amendment were approved by Oramed's stockholders, each of
these over 1.3 million shares is ultra vires, added the suit.
The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been at all times relevant,
a stockholder of the Company.
Oramed is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New York, New York. It is a pharmaceutical company
focused on the research and development of pharmaceutical
solutions, including an oral insulin capsule designed for the
treatment of diabetes. Oramed common stock is traded on the NASDAQ
Capital Market under the ticker symbol "ORMP." The Individual
Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
1441 Broadway, 6th Floor, No. 6161
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
- and -
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
3801 Kennett Pike
Building C, Suite 305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 504-4957
OSF INVESTMENTS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Williams Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. OSF INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02535-JPO (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://carpetexchange.com/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.
The Defendant offers the commercial Website to the public. The
website offers features which should allow all consumers to access
the goods and services offered by the Defendant and which Defendant
ensures delivery of such goods throughout the United States
including New York State. The goods and services offered by
Defendant include the following, which allow consumers to: purchase
flooring supplies such as carpet, hardwood, vinyl, tile, area rugs,
laminate and other products available online for purchase, and to
ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering
merchandise and return and privacy policies.[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, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
OUT OF BOUNDS: Svanyuta Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Brewery Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA SVANYUTA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OUT OF BOUNDS BREWING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-at-00353 (E.D. Cal., April 17, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the California Labor Code including failure to
properly pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide compliant paystubs, failure to produce
payroll records, failure to produce personnel records, failure to
pay premiums for missed breaks, wrongful termination, and
intentional tort.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee from 2019 until her termination in March 2020.
Out of Bounds Brewing Company, LLC is a beer brewery operator, with
its principal office located in Rocklin, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT: Stebbins Seeks Service Technicians' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL STEBBINS, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT SERVICES d/b/a WILDCO
PES, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00272 (D.N.H., April 2, 2021) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant
to redress its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid Service Technician from in or around June 2020 until on
or about October 6, 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that although he and other similarly situated
Service Technicians regularly worked more than 40 hours per week,
the Defendant denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half time their regular
rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek,
including all of their travel time.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged failure to properly pay
overtime, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Service
Technicians have suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this
complaint for himself and for other similarly situated Service
Technicians to recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant,
including liquidated damages, reasonable legal fees and litigation
costs and expenses, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Petroleum Equipment Services provides technical services for
petroleum service centers along the east coast of the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas C. Tretter, Esq.
SHEEHAN, SCHAVONI, JUTRAS,
And MAGLIOCCHETTI, LLP
70 Bailey Boulevard
Haverhill, MA 01830
Tel: (978) 373-9161
Fax: (978) 372-5530
- and –
Manali Arora, Esq.
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Tel: (856) 685-7420
Fax: (856) 685-7417
PIZZA HUT: Fisher Sues Over Illegal Collection of 8.5% Sales Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH FISHER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, LLC, a foreign profit Corporation, Case
No. 123659694 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., March 24, 2021) is a
civil action seeking monetary damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act against Pizza Hut for all victims in Hillsborough
County of Defendant' deceptive trade practices.
According to the complaint, at the time of the purchase, the
Plaintiff objected to a representative of the Defendant to being
charged the improper 8.5 percent sales tax. The Defendant's
representative refused to remove the excess 1.0 percent sales tax
and informed the Plaintiff that they were required to charge the
improper 8.5 percent sales tax by the corporate office.
The Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages as a result of
Defendant's unlawful practice. The Plaintiff has been required to
retain the undersigned counsel to represent him in this action and
is obligated to pay them a reasonable fee for their services.
On March 16, 2021, Defendant received notice from the Florida
Department of Revenue County directing them to stop collecting the
8.5 percent sales tax and to return to the previous amount of 7.5
percent. The Defendant ignored the Florida Department of Revenue
County directive and, instead, chose to willfully continue
collecting the 8.5 percent sales tax, says the suit.
The Defendant is a foreign profit corporation authorized to do
business in Florida, operating a restaurant at 17420 N. Highway 41,
Lutz, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
JAY P. LECHNER, P.A.
Fifth Third Center
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 412
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 842-7071
E-mail: jplechn@jaylechner.com
admin@jaylechner.com
- and -
Ralph B. Fisher, Esq.
FISHER'S LAW OFFICE, P.A.
18125 Highway 41 N., Suite 109
Lutz, FL 33549
Telephone: (813) 949-2749
E-mail: ralphfisher@yahoo.com
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Faces Glover-Brown Insurance Suit in N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Premier
Insurance Company of Illinois. The case is captioned as
Glover-Brown v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01251-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 26, 2021).
The lawsuit arises from issues related to diversity-insurance
contract and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones.
Progressive Premier operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers car, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, pet,
commercial, health, business, boat, and other insurance products
and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
Suite 705
14 NE 1st Avenue
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Brittany Ann Barto, Esq.
Christopher Baker Hall, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
400 Galleria Pkwy, Suite 1150
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
E-mail: brittany@hallandlampros.com
chall@hallandlampros.com
- and -
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
- and -
William Thomas Lacy , Jr.
LINDSEY & LACY, PC
200 Westpark Drive, Suite 280
Peachtree City, GA 30269
Telephone: (770) 486-8445
Facsimile: (770) 486-8889
E-mail: tlacy@llptc.com
PROHEALTH CARE: Herman Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JULANE HERMAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL REGENCY OF NEW BERLIN,
INC., and PROHEALTH CARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00442
(E.D. Wis., April 6, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by failing to pay
overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee into the position of Certified Nursing
Assistant in approximately August 2019 at the Defendants' "Regency
Senior Communities Muskego" location.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek. But, because the Defendants failed to include
all forms of non-discretionary compensation in their regular rates
of pay, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were
not paid proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked
in excess of 40 per week. In addition, the Defendant intentionally
interfered with the Plaintiff's rights by terminating her
employment in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993, the suit adds.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees have suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this
complaint as a collective and class action seeking to recover
damages from the Defendants in the form of reimbursement for unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs and attorneys'
fees, pre- and post-judgement interest, and other relief as the
Court deems just and equitable.
National Regency of New Berlin, Inc. operates senior care
communities in Waukesha County, Wisconsin. ProHealth Care, Inc. is
a health care entity operating primarily in southeastern Wisconsin.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walsheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
RFSC LLC: Potter Files TCPA Suit in District of Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RFSC, LLC. The case
is styled as Kathryn Potter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RFSC, LLC doing business as: Roots Rx,
a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01078 (D.
Colo., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Roots Rx -- https://rootsrxstores.com/ -- is a cannabis dispensary
located in the Eagle-Vail, Colorado area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE
14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
ROBERT L. SALDUTTI: Evans Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT L. SALDUTTI and SALDUTTI LAW GROUP,
Defendants, Case No. MID-L-002020-21 (N.D. Sup. Ct., April 4, 2021)
is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff on April 15, 2020 in an attempt to collect an
alleged defaulted debt that was incurred to Celtic Bank,
specifically Reflex credit card. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Letter he received contains statements that would be confusing,
misleading, and/or deceptive to the least sophisticated debtor. By
stating in its letter that it will assume the debt to be valid
unless the debtor sends a written notice to them, the Defendants
deceived the Plaintiff that the only way he could dispute the debt
was to send a written notice rather than by other means of
communicating with the Defendants, the suit says.
Moreover, the Defendants filed a lawsuit on or about June 24, 2020
on behalf of DNF to collect the Alleged Reflex Debt wherein it
states that there is currently due and owing from the Plaintiff to
DNF the sum of $954.00, plus attorney fees in the amount of
$238.50, interest and costs of suit. Allegedly, the Defendant's
Collection Lawsuit filed is misleading and deceptive because the
least sophisticated debtor would believe that he/she owed $238.00
for attorney's fees as soon as the complaint was filed.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for maximum statutory
damages and all other applicable statutes, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
The Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Ricci, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC
51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Tel: (973) 218-2627
E-mail: dricci@NJConsumerLawyer.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ferreiro Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARLOS FERREIRO, SKYLER BAIRD, NERMIN MEMIC, and
BHARAT THAKKAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC;
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 4:21-cv-01083, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on April 16, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21479-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith
and fair dealing, and breach of express and implied warranties by
restricting the ability of retail investors to purchase stocks in
the open market.
Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anuj Kapur, Esq.
Andy Rubenstein, Esq.
D. MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
2610 W. Sam Houston Parkway Suite 200
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (713) 850-8600
Facsimile: (713) 366-3460
E-mail: anuj@dmillerlaw.com
andy@dmillerlaw.com
- and –
Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
400 Broadhollow Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (212) 397-1000
Facsimile: (646) 843-7619
E-mail: nfarnolo@napolilaw.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lybrook Securities Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SPENCER LYBROOK, ALEC ENGLISH, MICHAEL WATSON, and
CODY HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01596, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on April 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21442-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing,
negligence, and violations of the California's Unfair Competition
Law by removing stocks from their trading platforms in the midst of
an unprecedented stock rise thereby depriving retail investors the
ability to invest in the open-market.
Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 463-3900
Facsimile: (510) 463-3901
E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
- and –
Gretchen Freeman, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
Maxwell Goins, Esq.
Rachel Morowitz, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
mgoins@kellerrohrback.com
- and –
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0580
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
scs@sstriallawyers.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Norvell Suit Moved From D. Ore. to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAYMOND NORVELL, MIKE VALLEJO, and DAVID SEGOVIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00319, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21453-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful trade
practices by misrepresenting Robinhood's Gold service that
investors could use it to make unlimited commission-free trades in
stocks.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Fuller, Esq.
OLSENDAINES
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 222-2000
E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com
RT PIZZA: Hurt Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HURT, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. RT PIZZA, INC.
d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA and RICKY TEEL, Case No. 7:20-cv-00057-WLS
(M.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective on behalf of
"current or former employees who were employed by Defendants
as pizza delivery drivers;"
2. authorizing to send a notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs
informing them of the pending action and their right to opt
into the action; and
3. staying the case for a period of 90 days to give the parties
the opportunity to send the notice, determine who joins the
case, and discuss potential resolution of their claims
following notice.
Domino's Pizza, Inc., branded as Domino's, is an American
multinational pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960. The
corporation is Delaware domiciled and headquartered at the Domino's
Farms Office Park in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vnkS7F at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 North Orange Avenue –Suite 1500
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew R. Simpson, Esq.
JonVieve D. Hill, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 231-1400
Facsimile: (404) 240-4249
E-mail: msimpson@fisherphillips.com
jhill@fisherphillips.com
SAFEWAY INC: Frost Sues Over Mislabeled Infants' Pain Relievers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY FROST AND ASHLEY WARNER, individually and on behalf of all
others situated v. SAFEWAY INC. a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-02137-SK (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2021) is a class action
brought on behalf of persons who purchased Signature Care Infants'
Pain Relief Acetaminophen (the "Infants' Product").
Safeway is a supermarket chain with over 1,300 stores across the
United States, more than 240 of which are in California. Safeway's
website also allows consumers to purchase general merchandise --
including over-the-counter ("OTC") drugs – online.
According to the complaint, Safeway distributes its own brand of
OTC pain relievers and fever reducers under the "Signature CareTM"
label, including the Infants' Product and Signature Care Children's
Pain Relief Acetaminophen (the "Children's Product").
Acetaminophen, the active ingredient in the Products, can be
dangerous and even fatal if taken in large doses. The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") warns parents and caregivers to "[b]e
very careful when you're giving your infant acetaminophen." The
potential risks associated with acetaminophen concern parents and
caregivers, causing them to be extra cautious when buying medicine
for their infants and children.
Allegedly, Safeway exploits parents' and caregivers' fear of giving
their infants an improper, or possibly fatal, dosage through their
packaging and labeling of the Infants' Product. Safeway's
advertisements, marketing representations, and labeling of the
Products are misleading, untrue, and likely to deceive reasonable
consumers. Safeway designs its packaging to mislead parents into
thinking that the Infants' Product is specially formulated to make
it specifically appropriate for infants from ages 2 to 3 as opposed
to older children, the suit adds.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Frost has resided in Peoria, Arizona and
purchased the Infants' Product near his residence. Mr. Frost
purchased two bottles of the Infants' Product for his sixteen
month-old, once in December 2020 and again in January 2021. He has
also purchased several bottles of the Children's Product for his
eight year-old and two eleven year-olds.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
Alexandra K. Green, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
nschubert@sjk.law
agreen@sjk.law
SCI KENTUCKY: Denial of Bid to Certify Class in Southern Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES A. SOUTHERN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, Appellants v. SCI KENTUCKY FUNERAL,
SERVICES, INC., Appellee, Case No. 2020-CA-0947-ME (Ky. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirms the Jefferson Circuit Court's
July 27, 2020 order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a
class action.
Mr. Southern was employed by SCI as a funeral director. In his
Complaint, Mr. Southern alleges that, contrary to SCI's written
policies requiring funeral directors to accurately reflect time in
and time out for all hours of work (including lunch breaks,
overtime, and work performed while on-call), he was required to
record eight hours of work per day, even when he worked through
lunch or break times. He further alleges that SCI failed to
provide mandatory breaks or compensate him for on-call time and
community marketing activities.
The Plaintiff brought the suit against SCI alleging violations of
the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment. His suit against SCI was originally brought in 2011.
He sought to certify the proposed class by motion filed on Dec. 18,
2019. Mr. Southern now seeks class certification on his claims for
all current and former funeral directors who were employed by SCI.
SCI responded to the motion on Feb. 7, 2020, and the circuit court
held a hearing telephonically on May 20, 2020, and entered its
order denying on July 27, 2020. The interlocutory appeal was filed
by Mr. Southern pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR)
23.06.
The only question that is before the Court of Appeals is: "Was the
trial court's decision to certify or not to certify the class in
the case arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound
legal principles?"
The Court of Appeals finds no abuse of discretion in the circuit
court's decision. First, it cannot agree with Southern that the
circuit court's finding that he failed to make a showing of
commonality was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.
Second, it finds no abuse of discretion in holding that the
typicality requirement was not met. Significant evidence of record
that indicates that funeral directors at other SCI funeral homes
did not share Mr. Southern's experience. Third, the circuit
court's analysis regarding adequacy comports with Kentucky law. It
finds no error in the circuit court's determination that Southern
did not demonstrate that he could adequately represent the class.
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirms the Jefferson
Circuit Court's July 27, 2020, interlocutory order denying
Southern's motion for class action certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5h7tvfju from Leagle.com.
Michael D. Grabhorn, Andrew M. Grabhorn, in Louisville, Kentucky,
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT.
Michelle D. Wyrick -- michellewyrick@wyattfirm.com -- in
Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR APPELLEE.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Reed Internet Casinos Suit Seeks Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA REED, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SCIENTIFIC GAMES
CORP., a Nevada corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00565-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Damages Class:
"All persons who purchased virtual casino chips in Jackpot
Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, or Quick Hit
Slots on or after April 17, 2014 in Washington;"
2. certifying the Injunction Class:
"All persons who played Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, or Quick Hit Slots on or after April
17, 2014 in Washington;"
3. appointing herself to represent both Classes;
4. appointing Edelson PC as counsel to both Classes; and
5. granting the proposed preliminary injunction.
This lawsuit alleges that the Defendant Scientific Games owns and
operates internet casinos that are illegal under Washington law. It
is one of several related cases before this Court alleging
functionally identical claims against the Defendant's industry
peers.
Scientific Games and its subsidiary SciPlay own and operate a
cohort of social casino games featuring slot machine-style
gameplay, including Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot
Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots. These slot games are, for good
reason, prohibited in Washington.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 9,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gr1FgY
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Todd Logan, Esq.
Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
tlogan@edelson.com
bsilverkorn@edelson.com
- and -
Alexander G. Tievsky, Esq.
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Amy B. Hausmann, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
atievsky@edelson.com
abhausmann@edelson.com
- and -
Cecily C. Shiel, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: cshiel@tousley.com
SMART MORTGAGE: Noe Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Loan Officers
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN NOE and EILEEN PRUITT on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated v. SMART MORTGAGE CENTERS, INC.; RICHARD BIRK;
and BRIAN BIRK, Case No. 1:21-cv-01668 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2021)
seeks redress for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as Illinois state wage payment laws, by
knowingly misclassifying their inside sales loan officers as exempt
employees and failing to pay them required minimum and overtime
wage.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as inside sales loan
officers. The Defendants allegedly implemented a common scheme
where the Loan Officer Plaintiffs and others similarly situated,
despite being inside loan officers not qualified under any
recognized exemption, were not paid for all hours worked, and were
not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given
workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the Illinois Wage and Hour
Laws.
Smart Mortgage is a mortgage broker which assists individuals with
home loans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark E. Christensen, Esq.
Nathan A. Hall, Esq.
Branden Gregory, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN HSU SIPES, LLP
135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312-634-1014
E-mail: mark@chs.law
nate@chs.law
branden@chs.law
- and -
Ari Karen, Esq.
Louis D. Tambaro, Esq.
OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.
8171 Maple Lawn Blvd., Ste. 200
Maple Lawn, MD 20759
Telephone: 301-575-0340
SONY ELECTRONICS: Guerriero Sues Over Cameras' Faulty Shutters
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Guerriero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sony Electronics Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-02618-VB
(S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2021) is a class action complaint alleging
that for many purchasers of the a7iii, mechanical problems with the
shutter have rendered the cameras unusable provided they do not pay
over $500 for repair to an authorized service center.
According to the complaint, Sony is aware of the percentage of this
model which experience premature shutter failure but has declined
to act such as issuing a recall or covering the faulty shutters.
The shutter is the component that retracts for a specific period of
time, allowing light to pass through the lens, hitting a
photographic film or a light-sensitive sensor to expose a scene and
permanently register it.
Plaintiff John Guerriero purchased the Product from Amazon.com in
or around 2019. The Plaintiff and/or class members experienced the
shutter failures and contacted and/or attempted to contact
Defendant to remedy this but were not successful because of
Defendant's alleged conduct.
Sony Electronics Inc. manufactures, markets and sells the a7iii
camera (Product) described as "the vanguard of the mirrorless
camera movement because they're the most accessible full-frame
system[s] on the market." The Defendant is one of the premier
manufacturers of electronics in the world, from stereos to
televisions to videogame systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.co
SOUTHBRIDGE TOWERS: Faces Goldberg Suit Over Gross Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GOLDBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN FRATTA; NICK MORRONE; JOHN OST; RYAN
MARCINIK; ANTHONY ROMANO; SEAN YUEN; LOUIS CONSALVO; ELAINE
KENNEDY, and XU LING ZHANG, Defendants, and SOUTHBRIDGE TOWERS,
INC., as Nominal Defendant, Case No. 652363/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New
York Cty., April 9, 2021) seeks to remedy the Defendants' breaches
of fiduciary duties, corporate waste, and mismanagement that
occurred from September 2015 continuing up to and through the
present day ("Relevant Period").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the
Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and
waste of corporate assets, Southbridge's shareholders were hit with
a $7 million assessment by the Board in January 2021, money that
many of them who are living on limited and fixed income cannot
afford to pay, and continue to face substantial maintenance
increases in the immediate future.
Southbridge Towers is a large housing cooperative development
located in the Civic Center neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New
York City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan E. Neuman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN E. NEUMAN
176-25 Union Turnpike, Suite 230
Fresh Meadows, NY 11366
Telephone: (347) 450-6710
Facsimile: (718) 228-3689
E-mail: jnesq@jenesqlaw.com
SQUARE GROVE: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Square Grove LLC. The
case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Square Grove LLC doing
business as: Uplift Desk, Case No. 1:21-cv-02995-GHW (S.D.N.Y.,
April 7, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
UPLIFT Desk -- https://www.squaregrove.com/ -- manufactures height
adjustable desks, seating, and office accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
STAHL/SCOTT FETZER: Negulis Sues Over Painters' Improper OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NEGULIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STAHL/SCOTT FETZER COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00741-JRA (N.D. Ohio, April 6, 2021) alleges the
Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Through Aerotek, a third-party staffing agency, the Plaintiff has
worked for the Defendant as its temporary employee in or around
March 2018 to perform duties as a Painter I. Aerotek paid the
Plaintiff hourly during his staffing assignment at Stahl.
Subsequently in or around June 2018, the Defendant hired the
Plaintiff from Aerotek and became a "Painter II" until he was
terminated on February 3, 2020.
Although the Defendant paid the Plaintiff's overtime compensation
when he worked more than 40 hours per week during his employment
with the Defendant as a Painter II, his overtime rate was
incorrectly calculated. Allegedly, his "shift differential" of
approximately $1.70 per hour, which he received when he worked
third shift, was not included by the Defendant in his regular rate
of pay when calculating his overtime rate.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants seeking
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, an injunction prohibiting the
Defendants from continued unlawful practices, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Stahl/Scott Fetzer Company is a manufacturer of service truck
bodies, forestry bodies, hybrid service-dump bodies, utility van
bodies, truck toolboxes, mobile cranes and truck accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris P. Wido, Esq.
THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
25200 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: (216) 291-4744
Fax: (216) 291-5744
E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com
STANDARD DOSE: Faces Olsen ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard Dose, Inc.
The case is captioned as Olsen v. Standard Dose, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02541-PGG (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G.
Gardephe.
Standard Dose operates as a multibrand CBD retailer. The Company
offers pursuit of elevated wellness through natural healing
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
SVAKOM DESIGN: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SVAKOM Design USA
Limited. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. SVAKOM Design USA Limited,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03415 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SVAKOM Design USA Limited -- https://www.svakom.net/ -- offer range
of industry's most advanced sex toys for the ultimate pleasure and
has been dedicated to design, research, development, manufacturing
and marketing of premium sex toys for years.[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
TD AMERITRADE: Odeh Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HANI ODEH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Defendant, CITADEL
SECURITIES AMERICAS LLC, CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS LLC, and
CITADEL EXECUTION SERVICES, INC., Respondents in Discovery, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01643, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on April 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21447-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged action of restricting
their customers to sell Healthier Choices Management Corp. common
stock from its trading platform from January 27, 2021 to February
2, 2021.
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.
Citadel Securities Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Citadel Execution Services, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander N. Loftus, Esq.
LOFTUS & EISENBERG, LTD.
161 N. Clark, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 899-6625
E-mail: alex@loftusandeisenberg.com
TD AMERITRADE: Shaeffer Class Suit Moved From D. Neb. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANCIS SHAEFFER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Case No.
8:21-cv-00093, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21450-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breaches of contract
and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by restricting
its customers, including the Plaintiff, to sell AMC Entertainment
Holding, Inc. securities through its trading platform on January
28, 2021.
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Domina, Esq.
DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO
2425 S. 144th St.
Omaha, NE 68144
Telephone: (402) 493-4100
E-mail: ddomina@dominalaw.com
- and –
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
David J. Worley, Esq.
Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
Stuart Guber, Esq.
Leslie Toran, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
david@ewlawllc.com
kristi@ewlawllc.com
stuart@ewlawllc.com
leslie@ewlawllc.com
TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Esqueda Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEX ESQUEDA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. and
DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV33001, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 16, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03321 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay timely
wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
unfair business practices.
Team Industrial Services, Inc. is a company that provides
maintenance, inspection, and construction services, with its
principal place of business in Sugar Land, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James D. McNairy, Esq.
Mark A. Gorton, Esq.
Michael G. Cross, Esq.
Errol C. Dauis, Esq.
Andrew M. Ducart, Esq.
BOUTIN JONES INC.
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 321-4444
Facsimile: (916) 441-7597
E-mail: jmcnairy@boutinjones.com
mgorton@boutinjones.com
mcross@boutinjones.com
edauis@boutinjones.com
aducart@boutinjones.com
TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Thai Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL THAI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV21953, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on April 16, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03319 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act including unfair
competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide
required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized
statements, failure to provide wages when due, failure to make
proper disclosures, and failure to obtain proper authorization.
Team Industrial Services, Inc. is a company that provides
maintenance, inspection, and construction services, with its
principal place of business in Sugar Land, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James D. McNairy, Esq.
Mark A. Gorton, Esq.
Michael G. Cross, Esq.
Errol C. Dauis, Esq.
Andrew M. Ducart, Esq.
BOUTIN JONES INC.
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 321-4444
Facsimile: (916) 441-7597
E-mail: jmcnairy@boutinjones.com
mgorton@boutinjones.com
mcross@boutinjones.com
edauis@boutinjones.com
aducart@boutinjones.com
U.S. SOCCER: C.D. California Enters Final Judgment in Morgan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX MORGAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES
SOCCER FEDERATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California:
(i) grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final
approval of class action settlement and its supporting
documents, and
(ii) approves the parties' proposed Class Action Settlement
and Release of Working Conditions Claims.
Judge Kausner orders that the terms and provisions of the
Settlement be carried out. The Court will retain jurisdiction to
oversee the administration and enforcement of the Settlement and
the Court's orders, except that any alleged violations of the four
agreed-upon policies of the Settlement (and any obligations of
these four policies) will exclusively be enforceable under and
subject to binding arbitration under the grievance and arbitration
procedure of the collective bargaining agreement between the United
States Soccer Federation, Inc. and the U.S. Women's National Team
Players Association, effective Jan. 1, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2021.
The Judge enters final judgment in the case, including on the
Plaintiff's Equal Pay Act and Title VII pay-discrimination claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4bp7ckrn from Leagle.com.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Venice Files Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as 822 W Washington LP d/b/a
Venice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Portier, LLC, Postmates Inc., Does 1
through 100, Case No. CGC21590882 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., April 19, 2021).
The case type is stated as "BUSINESS TORT."
Uber Technologies, Inc., commonly known as Uber --
https://www.uber.com/ -- is an American technology company. Its
services include ride-hailing, food delivery, package delivery,
couriers, freight transportation, and, through a partnership with
Lime, electric bicycle and motorized scooter rental.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex M. Outwater, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W Broadway, Ste. 3300
San Diego, CA 92101-0901
Phone: (619) 233-4565
Email: aoutwater@scott-scott.com
UNILEVER US: Anderson Sues Over Mislabeled Bodywash Products
------------------------------------------------------------
ALIYAH ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 7:21-cv-03117 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant mislabeled its "Deep Moisture Bodywash" containing
"skin-natural nourishers" and being "microbiome gentle" under the
Dove brand ("Product").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Product
is not "microbiome gentle" because it contains numerous ingredient
which trigger negative skin reactions. Also the Product's most
predominant ingredient after water is cocamidopropyl betaine
("CAPB").
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product in the absence
of Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions. The Product was
worth less than what the Plaintiff paid and she would not have paid
as much absent Defendant's false and misleading statements and
omissions, says the suit.
Unilever United States, Inc. manufactures personal care products.
The Company offers , laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps,
fragrances, and body washes. as well as provides ice creams, oils,
mayonnaise, spreads, sauces, tea. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
UNITED STATES SOCCER: Morgan Appeals Class Action Settlement Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ALEX MORGAN, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Alex Morgan, et al. v. United
States Soccer Federation, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Honorable
R. Gary Klausner granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. Specifically, the Court granted:
(1) certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class, defined as:
All WNT players on the team at the date of final judgment,
or the date of the resolution of any appeals therefrom,
whichever is later;
(2) certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, defined as:
All WNT players who were members of the WNT at any time
from February 4, 2015 through the date of class
certification; and
(3) conditional certification of a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), defined as:
All WNT players who were members of the WNT at any time
from March 8, 2016 through the present.
Named Plaintiffs Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Carli Lloyd, and Becky
Sauerbrunn were appointed as Class Representatives. Winston &
Strawn LLP was appointed as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs who are female professional soccer players on the
United States Senior Women's National Soccer Team (WNT) filed this
putative collective action and class action on March 8, 2019,
against the United States Soccer Federation, Inc. The Plaintiffs
assert two claims against the Defendant: (1) violation of the Equal
Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 206; and (2) violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e.
The Defendant is the single, common employer for the WNT and the
United States Senior Men's National Soccer Team ("MNT"). The
Defendant "centrally manages and controls every aspect of the
senior national team program for both" the WNT and the MNT,
including "setting and providing them with their pay[,]" hiring
their coaches, deciding the number of games they will play, and
coordinating travel.
The lawsuit arises from an alleged pay discrepancy between the MNT
and the WNT. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant refused
to pay WNT players for losing a game, tying a game, or winning a
game against a team ranked outside of the top ten. Another example
of the pay discrepancy between the MNT and the WNT can be found in
the way players are compensated for winning non-tournament games
called "friendlies." If each team were to play and win twenty
friendlies in a year, WNT players would earn a maximum of $99,000
(or $4,950 per game). MNT players, in contrast, would earn an
average of $263,320 (or $13,166 per game), the Plaintiffs asserts.
On April 13, 2021, the Court entered an Order GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. The Court
granted the motion in its entirety. The Court also approved the
parties' proposed Class Action Settlement and Release of Working
Conditions Claims. The Court entered final judgment in this case,
including on Plaintiffs' Equal pay Act and Title VII
pay-discrimination claims.
The appellate case is captioned as ALEX MORGAN, MEGAN RAPINOE,
BECKY SAUERBRUNN, CARLI LLOYD, MORGAN BRIAN, JANE CAMPBELL,
DANIELLE COLAPRICO, ABBY DAHLKEMPER, TIERNA DAVIDSON, CRYSTAL DUNN,
JULIE ERTZ, ADRIANNA FRANCH, ASHLYN HARRIS, TOBIN HEATH, LINDSEY
HORAN, ROSE LAVELLE, ALLIE LONG, MERRITT MATHIAS, JESSICA MCDONALD,
SAMANTHA MEWIS, ALYSSA NAEHER, KELLEY O'HARA, CHRISTEN PRESS,
MALLORY PUGH, CASEY SHORT, EMILY SONNETT, ANDI SULLIVAN, MCCALL
ZERBONI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-55356, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2021.
The Clerk of the Appeals Court directed the parties to meet this
time schedule:
April 21, 2021 Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire due
May 14, 2021 Transcript shall be ordered
June 14, 2021 Transcript shall be filed by court reporter
July 23, 2021 Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of
record shall be served and filed
August 23, 2021 Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of
record shall be served and filed
The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served
within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief. Failure of the
appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result in
automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
UNIVERSAL SCREEN: Faces ARL Suit Over Membership Renewal Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN BURZDAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSAL SCREEN ARTS, INC., an
Ohio Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-02148 (N.D. Calif., March 26,
2021) is a class action complaint against the Defendant to stop its
practice of deceptively enrolling consumers into a paid and
automatically renewing membership program.
According to the complaint, after a consumer places an order from
one of the Defendant's websites, they are presented with a free
shipping option. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, selecting the
free shipping option automatically enrolls them into a 7-day free
trial to Universal's VIP Insider membership program that renews
every month for $14.95. The VIP Insider program allegedly gives
consumer free shipping at any of Universal's retailers as well as
cash back benefits on each purchase, the suit adds.
However, when enrolling consumers into the free trial of the VIP
Insider membership, Universal fails to clearly and conspicuously
disclose the terms of the membership including that there is any
charge associated with the membership, let alone that it will
automatically renew on a monthly basis, alleges the suit.
Once a consumer is entrapped in the membership, cancelling the VIP
Insider membership is an intentionally difficult task. When a
consumer discovers (if at all) that Universal enrolled them into a
paid VIP Insider program, Universal does not offer a timely and
easy-to-use mechanism for cancelling the membership, leading to
repeat and ongoing unauthorized charges.
Consumers, the like Plaintiff Burzdak and the putative Class, have
been unknowingly enrolled into a membership program they did not
want with no clear way to cancel. As such, the Defendant has
violated the California Automatic Renewal Law and the California
Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiff Karen Burzdak is a natural person and citizen of the
State of California.
Universal Screen Arts is a "leading" multi-company retailer that
owns and operates myriad e-commerce websites and brands including
Acorn, Bas Bleu, Daedalus Books, Signals, Support Plus, and What on
Earth.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
Lily Hough, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
lhough@edelson.com
URSA MAJOR: Conner Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. URSA MAJOR NATURAL CARE LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02085-AMD-RER (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
Ursamajorvt.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
lack of alternative text on graphics, (2) inaccessible drop-down
menus, (3) lack of navigation links, (4) lack of adequate prompting
and labeling, (5) denial of keyboard access, (6) empty links that
contain no text, (7) redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, and (8) the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Ursa Major Natural Care LLC is an online store that offers skincare
and haircare products, with its principal place of business located
at 1 Stowe Street, Waterbury, Vermont. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
VIRGIN SCENT: Hand Sanitizers Contain Toxic Chemical, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZELDA BRODOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. VIRGIN SCENT, INC. D/B/A ARTNATURALS, INC., WALMART,
INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-60643-RKA (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2021) arises
from adulterated, misbranded, and unapproved hand sanitizer
products that were designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed,
packaged, and/or sold by the Defendants.
The specific hand sanitizer products currently include Artnaturals
product or brand name, as well as others including Lavender &
Herbs, TrueWash, Huangjisoo, The Creme Shop, Star Wars Mandalorian,
Body Prescriptions, Born Basic, Beauty Concepts, PureLogic, Miami
Carry On, Natural Wunderz, Puretize, Clean-Protect-Sanitize,
(collectively, the "Hand Sanitizer Products"). These Hand Sanitizer
Products are not merchantable, and are not of the quality
represented by the Defendants, suit says.
Allegedly, the Defendants' Hand Sanitizer Products contain
dangerously high levels of benzene, a hazardous genotoxic class I
human carcinogen. These dangerously high levels of benzene are not
disclosed by Defendants, and were only discovered very recently
when a third-party pharmacy tested Defendants' Hand Sanitizer
Products.
The Unites States Food and Drug Administration regulates the sale
of hand sanitizer products in the United States. These products are
considered over-the-counter drugs. As such, these products,
including Defendants' Hand Sanitizer Products, must comply with the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA regulations and guidance
promulgated thereunder, as well as analogous state statutory and
common law schemes pertaining to the safety, quality, and sale of
OTC drugs.
The Defendants sought to profit at consumers' expense during the
unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic by false labelling and selling Hand
Sanitizer Products that contained undisclosed levels of benzene, a
known human carcinogen. Benzene is typically used in the
manufacture of gasoline and other industry chemicals or textiles.
Because of its genotoxic and carcinogenic potential, in 2011 the
United States Environmental Protection introduced regulations that
lowered benzene content in gasoline. Meanwhile, Plaintiff and other
class members directly unknowingly purchased Defendants' Hand
Sanitizer Products to apply the product to their bodies (especially
so during the current COVID-19 pandemic) when the products
contained undisclosed levels of benzene impurities well beyond the
levels that would be permissible in gasoline, the suit says.
The Plaintiff brings this action for economic damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who paid for Defendants'
adulterated, misbranded, and/or unapproved Hand Sanitizer products
illegally manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed, and distributed in
the United States.
Plaintiff Zelda Brodowicz is a resident of Hollywood, Florida.
During the class period, Plaintiff paid money for one or more of
Defendants' Hand Sanitizer Products. Specifically, Plaintiff
purchased at least one or more of the following Hand Sanitizer
Products, manufactured and sold at retail to Plaintiff and other
consumers as follows: Artnaturals (manufactured or distributed by
Defendant Virgin Scent, and purchased by Plaintiff at a store
operated by Defendant Walmart).
Virgin Scent has been engaged in the manufacture, sale, marketing,
and/or distribution of adulterated and/or misbranded Hand Sanitizer
Products in the United States including Artnaturals.
Walmart has been engaged in the marketing or sale of adulterated
and/or misbranded Hand Sanitizer Products in the United States,
including Artnaturals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LAW LLC
1021 Kitchens Lane
Philadelphia, PA 19119
Telephone: (215) 237-9166
E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
- and -
Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
Layne Hilton, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504)-524-5777
E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
- and -
Daniel Nigh, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL
RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7013
E-mail: dnigh@levinlaw.com
- and -
George T. Williamson, Esq.
FARR, FARR, EMERICH
HACKETT, CARR & HOLMES, P.A.
99 Nesbit Street
Punta Gorda, FL 33950
Telephone: (941) 639-1158
E-mail: gwilliamson@farr.com
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATE: Burns Balks at Illegal Credit Report Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHITNEY BURNS Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 210302610
(Phily Com. Pleas, March 25, 2021) is a consumer class action for
damages brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Defendant Wakefield is a debt collector who attempted to collect an
old consumer debt that was discharged in Plaintiff's bankruptcy.
After the bankruptcy, the Defendant allegedly invaded Plaintiffs
credit privacy by obtaining her consumer report from a credit
reporting agency -- falsely certifying to the credit reporting
agency that it had a permissible purpose to do so.
As a result, the Defendant harmed Plaintiff and, upon information
and belief, hundreds like her across the United States, by
obtaining credit reports without authorization or any permissible
purpose.
Plaintiff Whitney Burns is a consumer who resides in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania at the address captioned above.
Defendant regularly engages in the collection of consumer debts,
alone or through agents, using the mails and telephone for the
purposes of collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
Narberth, PA 19072
Telephone: (610) 822-0782
WARTBURG COLLEGE: Warner Suit Removed to Northern District of Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sydney Warner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Wartburg College, Case No. CVCV006449
was removed from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on April 19,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:21-cv-02029 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Wartburg College -- https://www.wartburg.edu/ -- is a private
Lutheran liberal arts college in Waverly, Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Phone: (515) 223-4567
Email: marty@sagwlaw.com
goplerud@sagwlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark L Zaiger, Esq.
SHUTTLEWORTH & INGERSOLL
115 Third Street SE Suite 500
PO Box 2107
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-2107
Phone: (319) 365-9461
Email: mlz@shuttleworthlaw.com
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Faces Mator ERISA Suit Over Excessive RPS Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MATOR and NANCY MATOR, individually and as representatives
of a class of participants and beneficiaries in and on behalf of
the WESCO DISTRIBUTION, INC. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN v. WESCO
DISTRIBUTION, INC.; and THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE
FOR WESCO DISTRIBUTION, INC. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; and JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:21-cv-00403-MJH (W.D. Pa., March 26,
2021) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act for the benefit of the Plan and its
participants.
This action asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and
other violations of 29 U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(2) and (3) against
the Plan's fiduciaries, which include: Wesco Distribution, Inc. and
the Administrative and Investment Committee for the Wesco
Distribution, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' failures to monitor
retirement plan services (RPS) fees and ensure their reasonableness
breached the fiduciary duties they owed to the Plaintiffs, Plan
participants, and beneficiaries. Prudent fiduciaries of 401(k)
plans continuously monitor the market for RPS to ensure the fees
paid by the plan are reasonable. The Defendants did not engage in
prudent decision-making processes, but decided instead to remain
with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) and not seek competitive
bids or otherwise determine the market for RPS. There is no other
explanation for why the Plan paid objectively unreasonable fees for
RPS, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs were injured by the Defendants' alleged actions
because Defendants permitted all Plan participants to be charged
excessive RPS fees, which reduced the Plaintiffs' and other Plan
participants' account balances and caused them significantly
diminished investment returns.
To remedy the Defendants' fiduciary breaches, Plaintiffs,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries in the Plan, bring this action on behalf of the Plan
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) and (3) to enforce the
Defendants' personal liability under 29 U.S.C. Section 1109(a) to
restore to the Plan all losses resulting from each breach of
fiduciary duty. In addition, the Plaintiffs seek such other
equitable or remedial relief for the Plan as the Court may deem
appropriate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
& DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
- and -
Paul R. Wood, Esq.
Timothy Foster, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
E-mail: woodp@fdazar.com
fostert@fdazar.com
ZGTL LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ZGTL LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02586-AT (S.D.N.Y., March
24, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.helmm.com, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
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.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a deodorant manufacturing company, and owns and
operates the Website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
ZNN DELI: Faces Lizama Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GAITAN LIZAMA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZNN DELI GROCERY LLC and JOHN DOE
1 a/k/a ALI and JOHN DOE 2 a/k/a NASH, as individuals, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02856 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendants seeking to
recover damages for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from in or around
February 2020 until in or around February 2021 as a stocker and
counter person.
Despite the Plaintiff worked approximately 60 or more hours per
week during his employment with the Defendants, the Defendants
denied him of overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40
in a workweek, the Plaintiff contends. He also asserts that the
Defendants willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records, and
to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements
in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as
required by both the NYLL and the FLSA.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for unpaid overtime wages and
liquidated damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief
as the Court deems necessary and proper.
ZNN Deli Grocery LLC operates a grocery store. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Still Faces Claims Under Insurance Pacts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., continues to receive claims
under expired insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting
injuries and/or damages relating to or resulting from environmental
pollution and hazardous substances, including asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Environmental claims typically assert
liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of environmental
contamination or (b) bodily injury or property damage caused by the
release of hazardous substances into the land, air or water.
Asbestos claims typically assert liability for bodily injury from
exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from asbestos
or products containing asbestos.
"We are required to maintain reserves to cover our estimated
ultimate liability of losses and loss adjustment expenses ("LAE")
for both reported and unreported claims incurred. These reserves
are only estimates of what we believe the settlement and
administration of claims will cost based on facts and circumstances
known to us. In setting reserves for our reinsurance liabilities,
we rely on claim data supplied by our ceding companies and brokers
and we employ actuarial and statistical projections. The
information received from our ceding companies is not always timely
or accurate, which can contribute to inaccuracies in our loss
projections. Because of the uncertainties that surround our
estimates of loss and LAE reserves, we cannot be certain that
ultimate losses and LAE payments will not exceed our estimates. If
our reserves are deficient, we would be required to increase loss
reserves in the period in which such deficiencies are identified
which would cause a charge to our earnings and a reduction of
capital.
"The Company's reserves include an estimate of the Company's
ultimate liability for A&E claims. The Company's A&E liabilities
emanate from direct insurance business and Everest Re's assumed
reinsurance business. All of the contracts of insurance and
reinsurance, under which the Company has received claims during the
past three years, expired more than 20 years ago. There are
significant uncertainties surrounding the Company's reserves for
its A&E losses.
"The difficulty in estimating our reserves is significantly more
challenging as it relates to reserving for potential asbestos and
environmental ("A&E") liabilities. At December 31, 2020, 1.9% of
our gross reserves were comprised of A&E reserves. A&E liabilities
are especially hard to estimate for many reasons, including the
long delays between exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury
or property damage, difficulty in identifying the source of the
asbestos or environmental contamination, long reporting delays and
difficulty in properly allocating liability for the asbestos or
environmental damage. Legal tactics and judicial and legislative
developments affecting the scope of insurers' liability, which can
be difficult to predict, also contribute to uncertainties in
estimating reserves for A&E liabilities."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Qg3dQm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio faces 118 Personal Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. is a co-defendant in approximately 118
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 219 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3 million
compensatory and $1 million punitive damages; one count at $1
million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for
three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory
damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any.
"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2OLpULk
*********
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 2021. 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 ***