/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210512.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 12, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 89
Headlines
1-800 CONTACTS: Fridman FSCA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
22ND CENTURY: Gayed Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
2U INC: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Consolidated Suit Pending
3555 WHITE PLAINS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Choc Suit Alleges
3M CO: Bair Hugger Suit in Ontario Underway
3M CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Delaware Class Action Pending
3M CO: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending
3M CO: Class Certification Bid in Ohio Putative Class Suit Pending
3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in "King" Putative Class Suit
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Rodriguez Says
3M COMPANY: Harville Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Rich Sues Due to the Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Zangaro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
9400 LIBERTY: Schlanger Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
ADYAR ANANDA: Ocampo Sues Over Delivery Worker's Unpaid Wages
AGENT PROVOCATEUR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Mason Says
ALKERMES PLC: Putative Class Suit's Dismissal Under Appeal
AMAZON.COM LLC: Faces Escobar Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
APPLE INC: Faces Franklin Suit Over Defective iPhone 6 Batteries
AVALON HEALTH: Underpays Nurse's Assistants, Estrada Suit Claims
B COMMUNICATIONS: Distribution Plan in Rex & Roberta Suit Approved
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seresto Collars Harmful to Pets, Knudson Says
BELFOR USA: Faces Hatcher Investments Suit Over Rental Overcharge
BRITISH STANDARDS: Williams-Bell Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit
CALIFORNIA FACULTY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Brice Class Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Bid to Dismiss Purported Class Suit Pending
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Class Status Bid
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suit on Content of Data Package Abroad Underway
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suit on Unlawful Charging Scheme Underway
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unlawful Charging Related Suit Underway
CENTENE CORP: Faces Data Breach Related Putative Class Suits
CHINA ZENIX: Documentation of Proposed Class Settlement Ongoing
CONTAINER SPECIALTIES: Faces Trost FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CORR CONTEMPORARY: Faces Chubac Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
CRESCO LABS: Dutcher et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
CRIMCHECK HOLDINGS: Espinoza Sues Over Furnished Consumer Reports
DANIEL PINAR: Improperly Pays Dental Assistants, Salas Suit Says
DELI MANAGEMENT: Faces Urban Suit Over Assistant Managers' OT Pay
DELTA AIR: Eierstock ERISA Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to N.D. Ga.
DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT: Mireles Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Waiters
EBIX INC: Teifke Putative Class Action Underway
EDDIE BAUER: Clark Appeals False Ad Class Suit Dismissal
EDISON INT'L: August 9 Bellwether Jury Trial on Woolsey Fire Suit
EDISON INT'L: Bellwether Trial Related to Two Fires Set for Oct. 18
ENPHASE ENERGY: Hearing on Bid to Nix Hurst Suit Set for July 29
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Etengoff Appeals Case Dismissal to NY Supreme Ct.
F&M CONSTRUCTION: Garrido Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Laborers
FIBROGEN INC: Misleads Investors to Inflate Stock Price, Suit Says
FIBROGEN INC: Pension Plan Sues Over 68% Drop of Stock Price
FOGO DE CHAO: Denied Promotion to Female Employees, Hyska Alleges
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Hogan Sues Over Denied Account Info Requests
GENERAL MILLS: Cheese Products Contain Phthalates, Franklin Says
GOOGLE LLC: Profits From Online Gambling Activities, Solomon Says
GREENSKY INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Belyea Suit
GRUBHUB INC: Unlimited Free Delivery Ads "Deceptive," Stout Claims
HEALTHGRADES OPERATING: Fails to Secure Private Info, Davidson Says
HEBREW HOMES: Millet Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Nurses
HUFFMASTER MANAGEMENT: Campbell Suit Removed to E.D. California
HYGEIA INTEGRATED: Natoli Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
IIA NUCLEAR: Faces Howe Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Supervisors
IN-N-OUT BURGER: Becerra Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Butchers
IO INC: Faces Patton Suit Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters
ITS LOGISTICS: Guthrie Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
J R RESTAURANT: Sosa Suit Alleges Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
JUUL LABS: Franklin Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Matarazzo Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Wilhelm Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
KLOM KLORM: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Workers, Lopez Alleges
KNAUF GIPS: Acosta Sues Over Drywall's Damaging Effect to Property
LYFT INC: Osvatics Is Bound by Arbitration Agreement, Court Says
MASTER PROPERTY: Faces Galeana Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
MDM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Inspectors' Overtime, Cottrill Suit Says
MED-DATA INC: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Seibel Suit Says
MILESTONE TECHNOLOGIES: Farthing Class Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages
MINDFUL TUTOR: Faces Quillin Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
MORGAN THOMAS: Fails to Properly Pay Staff, Solis Suit Alleges
NATIONAL CONTINENTAL: MSP Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to N.D. Ohio
NATIONAL TECHNICAL: Downey Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Proper Wages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Thompson Sues Over Illegal Fund Transfer
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Barfield Suit Over Protesters' Illegal Arrests
NEWREZ LLC: Ross Sues Over Unauthorized Bank Fund Transfer
NEXO FINANCIAL: Jeong Sues Over Suspension of Repayment Option
NINA'S HEALTH: Justus Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Overtime
OPERATIONS GROUP: Brasington Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
P & G LEXINGTON: Guzman Sues Over Delivery Worker's Unpaid Wages
PHOENIX, AZ: Class Certification in PLEA Suit Affirmed in Part
PLANT HEALTH: Faces Toporek Suit Over Mislabeled Products
PLS CHECK: Francisco Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Labor Suit
PLUG POWER: Tank Sues Over 22% Decline of Stock Price
PNC BANK: Appeals Kazi Wage-and-Hour Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Keirsted Sues Over Toothpaste's Deceptive Labels
QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION: Mullur Sues Over Stock Price Decline
RC FL-SHOPPES: Brito Files Suit in S.D. Florida Over ADA Violations
RCI HOSPITALITY: Underpays Exotic Entertainers, Figueredo Claims
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Restricts Access to Open Markets, Suit Says
ROMANOFF FLOOR: $1.4M Class Settlement in Bailey Suit Gets Final OK
RPS HOLDINGS: De Sa Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Dancers Under FLSA
SAKS & COMPANY: Alexander Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
SHC SERVICES: Dunn Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Gonpo FLSA Suit Ruling
SONY INTERACTIVE: Restricts Video Games Market, Caccuri Alleges
SPRINT CORPORATION: Flex Lease Program "Deceptive," Gutierrez Says
SPROUT FOODS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Heavy Metals, Key Suit Says
STATE FARM: Royal Palm Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal to 11th Cir
SYNGENTA AG: Holliday Sues Over Side Effects of Paraquat's Exposure
T&M RESTAURANT: Jimenez Seeks Website Access for Blind Consumers
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Ryan's Breach & Unjust Enrichment Claims Tossed
TEN SOUTH: Beamon Sues Over Maintenance Technicians' Unpaid OT
TRI-CITY GLASS: Underpays Non-exempt Employees, Wallace Claims
TRIBAL NUTRITION: Faces Ervay Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TWIN LIQUORS: Fails to Properly Pay CSRs' OT Wages, Santos Claims
UNITED STATES: 1st Cir. Affirms Judgment in Pagan-Lisboa v. SSA
VILLAGE OF HIGHLAND: Underpays Firefighters, Jones Suit Claims
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Karp Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to D. Mass.
WESTMINSTER MINT: Defrauds Elderly Persons to Buy Bullion Coins
WIPRO LTD: Ruffing Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Labor Class Suit Ruling
YAMATO TRANSPORT: Misclassifies Movers, Makiyama Suit Claims
*********
1-800 CONTACTS: Fridman FSCA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL FRIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., Case No.
2021-006323-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May
3, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21700 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Florida Security of Communications Act by intercepting the
electronic communications of the Plaintiff and Class members.
1-800 Contacts, Inc. is an American contact lens retailer based in
Draper, Utah. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason H. Baruch, Esq.
Jessica S. Kramer, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
100 North Tampa St., Suite 4100
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 227-8500
Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
E-mail: jason.baruch@hklaw.com
jessica.kramer@hklaw.com
- and –
Brandon T. White, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
701 Brickell Avenue Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-8500
E-mail: brandon.white@hklaw.com
22ND CENTURY: Gayed Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YOUSSIF GAYED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 22ND CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 56-2021-551655-CU-OE-VTA, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03828 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 and rest periods, failure to
pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of
pay, failure to indemnify, wage statement penalties, waiting time
penalties, and unfair competition.
22nd Century Technologies, Inc. is an information technology
service management company with its headquarters located in
Somerset, New Jersey, and McLean, Virginia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
2U INC: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
2U, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 28, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated
putative class action suit remains pending before the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
On August 7 and 9, 2019, Aaron Harper and Anne M. Chinn filed
putative class action complaints against the Company, Christopher
J. Paucek, the Company's CEO, and Catherine A. Graham, the
Company's former CFO, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based upon allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects and financial
projections.
The district court transferred the cases to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, consolidated them
under docket number 8:19-cv-3455 (D. Md.), and appointed Fiyyaz
Pirani as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.
On July 30, 2020, Mr. Pirani filed a consolidated class action
complaint ("CAC"), adding Harsha Mokkarala, the Company's former
Chief Marketing Officer, as a defendant. The CAC also asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, against Mr. Paucek, Ms. Graham, members of the
Company's board of directors, and the Company's underwriters, based
on allegations related to the Company's secondary stock offering on
May 23, 2018.
The proposed class consists of all persons who acquired the
Company's securities between February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019.
On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On
December 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief and
on February 9, 2021 the defendants filed a reply brief.
2U said, "The Company believes that the claims are without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend against these claims. However,
due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved,
the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable."
Headquartered in Landover, Maryland, 2U, Inc. provides cloud-based
SaaS solutions that address the needs of nonprofit colleges and
universities to attract, enroll and deliver quality education to
students. The 2U platform enables clients to offer full
undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs online.
3555 WHITE PLAINS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Choc Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS TEC CHOC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3555 WHITE PLAINS BG LLC D/B/A POPEYE'S
LOUISIANA KITCHEN; 21903 N CONDUIT CHICKEN LLC D/B/A POPEYE'S
LOUISIANA KITCHEN; ATLANTIC 107 CHICKEN LLC D/B/A POPEYE'S
LOUISIANA KITCHEN; LIBERTY CHICKEN, INC. D/B/A POPEYE'S LOUISIANA
KITCHEN; and JOHN DOE D/B/A POPEYE'S LOUISIANA KITCHEN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02416 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 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.
Plaintiff Choc was employed by the Defendants as food preparer.
3555 White Plains BG LLC d/b/a Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen operates
a chain of fried chicken fast food restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Morales, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com
3M CO: Bair Hugger Suit in Ontario Underway
-------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend itself
against a putative class action related to the company's Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system, pending before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.
In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular,
and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections
that the representative plaintiff claims was due to the use of the
Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system.
The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive
damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those
asserted in the MDL.
No liability has been recorded for the Bair Hugger(TM) litigation
because the Company believes that any such liability is not
probable and estimable at this time.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Delaware Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the motion seeking dismissal of the
amended class action complaint in Delaware is pending.
In Delaware, 3M, together with several co-defendants, is defending
one putative class action brought by individuals alleging
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFAS) contamination of their water supply
resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities.
Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the metal plating
facilities. DuPont, Chemours, and the metal platers have also been
named as defendants. This case has been removed from state court to
federal court, and plaintiffs have withdrawn its motion to remand
to state court and filed an amended complaint.
3M has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
In February 2021, the court raised the question whether subject
matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act was proper,
issued an order requiring the parties to brief the issue and denied
defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to renew pending the
court's ruling on jurisdiction.
Briefing on the jurisdictional question is anticipated to be
complete in May 2021.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the bid to dismiss Heavy & General
Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund consolidated putative class
action suit, is pending.
In July 2019, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare
Fund filed a putative securities class action against 3M Company,
its former Chairman and CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and former
CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In August 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a similar putative
securities class action in the same district. Plaintiffs allege
that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding 3M's
exposure to liability associated with PFAS and bring claims for
damages under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under Section 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual
defendants.
In October 2019, the court consolidated the securities class
actions and appointed a group of lead plaintiffs.
In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In August
2020, the court denied the motion to transfer venue, and in
September 2020, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
mandamus to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In November 2020, the federal Court of Appeals granted 3M's
petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the New Jersey federal
court to transfer the action to the Minnesota federal court.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action in January
2021, which is not yet briefed. The suit is in the early stages of
litigation.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: Class Certification Bid in Ohio Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the motion for class certification filed
in the putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, is pending.
In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and
Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the
plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to Perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFAS) chemicals through his use of firefighting foam,
purporting to represent a putative class of all U.S. individuals
with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood.
The plaintiff brings claims for negligence, battery, and conspiracy
and seeks injunctive relief, including an order "establishing an
independent panel of scientists" to evaluate PFAS.
3M and other entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in February
2019. In September 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.
In February 2020, the court denied 3M's motion to transfer the case
to the AFFF MDL. In December 2020, the defendants filed their joint
opposition to the class certification motion filed earlier by the
plaintiff.
The plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of class
certification in March 2021.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in "King" Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the "King"
suit.
In November 2017, a putative class action (the "King" case) was
filed against 3M, Dyneon, Daikin America and the West Morgan-East
Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority) in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama
who receive their water from the Water Authority and seek
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive
damages for their alleged personal injuries.
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate
manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur, Alabama that have
released and continue to release perfluorooctanoate (PFOA),
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and related chemicals into the
groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in
discharges into the Tennessee River.
The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged discharges,
the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was,
and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals at a
level dangerous to humans.
In November 2019, the King plaintiffs amended their complaint to
withdraw all class allegations. Since then, the plaintiffs have
added 37 new individual plaintiffs and voluntarily dismissed five
plaintiffs (for a total of 55 plaintiffs).
The case is scheduled for trial in June 2022, but the plaintiffs
have sought to extend the case deadlines. The parties negotiated a
revised schedule and proposed a July 2023 trial date, pending the
court's approval.
Discovery in this case is proceeding.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Rodriguez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, 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-01334-RMG
(D.S.C., May 5, 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 Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants 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. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, the suit says.
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:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Harville Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN HARVILLE, 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-01308-RMG
(D.S.C., May 3, 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 the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are allegedly dangerous
as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit contends.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and
complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.
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: Jones Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDDIE JONES, 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-01340-RMG
(D.S.C., May 5, 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 the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit contends.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and
complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.
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: Rich Sues Due to the Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH COSMO RICH, 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-01333-RMG
(D.S.C., May 5, 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.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, the suit
says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and
complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.
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:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Zangaro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY GUY ZANGARO, 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-01335-RMG
(D.S.C., May 5, 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 suit arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are highly
toxic and dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants 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
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.
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:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
9400 LIBERTY: Schlanger Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALISON SCHLANGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 9400 LIBERTY CHICKEN LLC; 12515 CHICKEN
CORP; BUKHARI GROUP LLC; and JOHN DOES #1 and #2, Defendants, Case
No. 9:21-cv-02146 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021) brings this class and
collective action complaint against the Defendants to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours compensation,
and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff started working as the evening manager at 9400
Liberty Chicken LLC from about December 30, 2019 to August 24,
2020. From August 25, 2020 and January 25, 2021, he was transferred
from Popeyes to Texas Chicken to work as the general manager.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants regularly and frequently
failed and refused to provide him and other similarly situated
employees the overtime premium that were due and owing at the
applicable overtime rate as required by FLSA and NYLL. In addition,
the Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with
a policy of not paying him and other similarly situated employees
"spread of hours" premium for each day that they work a shift in
excess of 10 hours. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide them
with an accurate wage statement and accurate paystubs which
reflected the actual hours they worked, the suit says.
The Corporate Defendants own and operate no less than 5 restaurants
branded "Popeyes" or "Texas Chicken" throughout Queens County.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY
Tel: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
ADYAR ANANDA: Ocampo Sues Over Delivery Worker's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO OCAMPO VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ADYAR ANANDA BHAVAN CORP. (D/B/A ADYAR ANANDA
BHAVAN) and ANITHA RAJU GOUNDER, Case No. 1:21-cv-02793-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., April 1, 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, Mr. Ocampo 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 cleaning bathrooms, washing dishes, cutting
vegetables for both restaurants, peeling potatoes, cutting coconut,
taking out the garbage , bringing up sodas, water and other drinks
from the basement, cleaning the basement, stocking food deliveries
from the truck to the fridge and bringing up items from the
basement for the kitchen staff (non-tipped duties). He worked for
the Defendants without appropriate minimum wage and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff Ocampo appropriately for any hours worked,
at the straight rate of pay, the suit says.
The Defendants operate an Indian restaurant located in the Midtown
East neighborhood in Manhattan.[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
AGENT PROVOCATEUR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Mason Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTIA MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGENT PROVOCATEUR INTERNATIONAL (US) LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03337 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Plaintiff claims that he has encountered multiple access
barriers during his numerous visits to the Defendant's website,
https://www.agentprovocateur.com/us_en/, in an attempt to make a
purchase. These multiple access barriers denied him full and equal
access to the facilities, goods, and services offered to the public
despite past and recent attempts to do business with the Defendant
on its website, and deterred him from visiting the Defendant's
physical locations and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with WCAG
2.1, which would provide him and other similarly situated visually
impaired consumers with equal access to the website.
Agent Provocateur International (US) LLC operates stores that
provide important goods and services to the public. Its website
provides consumers access to directional, luxurious, sensual
lingerie designed to empower the wearer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
ALKERMES PLC: Putative Class Suit's Dismissal Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the the plaintiff in the consolidated
putative class suit filed a notice of appeal, appealing the Final
Judgment and Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York captioned Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott v. Alkermes plc, et al., No.
1:19-cv-00624, respectively.
In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated the two cases
and appointed a lead plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2019 naming one
additional officer of the Company and one former officer of the
Company as defendants. The amended complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the
period of July 31, 2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions regarding
the Company's clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for
ALKS 5461 and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review and
consideration of that submission.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.
On February 26, 2021, the EDNY District Court entered a final
judgment and order dismissing the action in its entirety.
On March 26, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
appealing the Final Judgment and Order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
AMAZON.COM LLC: Faces Escobar Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
DALLAN ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC. and
GLOBAL FORWARDING LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-03391 (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act including failure to provide regular pay
or minimum wages, failure to provide overtime premium pay, failure
to authorize, permit and/or make available meal periods, failure to
authorize, permit and/or make available rest periods, failure to
reimburse for necessary business expenditures incurred, failure to
provide and maintain accurate and compliant wage records, unfair
business practices, and waiting time penalties.
Mr. Escobar worked for the Defendants as a delivery associate in
both California and Colorado.
Amazon.com, LLC is a provider of Web service platforms with
principal offices in Seattle, Washington.
Amazon Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company with principal
offices in Seattle, Washington.
Global Forwarding Logistics, LLC is a freight forwarding company
with principal offices in Snohomish, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
THE BAINER LAW FIRM
1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 922-1802
Facsimile: (510) 844-7701
E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com
- and –
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
ssb@llrlaw.com
APPLE INC: Faces Franklin Suit Over Defective iPhone 6 Batteries
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00354 (E.D. Tex., May 6, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of express warranty, damages, and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in
manufacturing, distribution and sale of the iPhone 6 smartphone
with a defective battery. The iPhone 6 battery contains a defect
which makes it unable to reliably perform its function of powering
the iPhone 6 without overheating. This defect creates a danger of
explosion and fire in the iPhone 6. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged omissions, the Plaintiff's iPhone 6 was unsafe to operate
and was destroyed by the explosion. The Plaintiff incurred economic
loss damages associated with the loss and replacement of his iPhone
6 and subsequent medical treatment for his injuries, the suit
says.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey T. Embry, Esq.
Margaret C. Pennell, Esq.
HOSSLEY & EMBRY, LLP
515 S. Vine Ave.
Tyler, TX 75702
Telephone: (903) 526-1772
Facsimile: (903) 526-1773
E-mail: jeff@hossleyembry.com
meg@hossleyembry.com
- and –
Matt Montgomery, Esq.
HOSSLEY & EMBRY, LLP
4733 Don Drive
Dallas, TX 75247
Telephone: (214) 390-2349
E-mail: matt@hossleyembry.com
AVALON HEALTH: Underpays Nurse's Assistants, Estrada Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TINA ALONZO ESTRADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVALON HEALTH CARE HEARTHSTONE LLC, AVALON
HEALTH CARE ROYALE GARDENS LLC, STAFFERS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00688-CL (D. Or., May 5, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Oregon law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to authorize the Plaintiff and Class
members to take all meal breaks, failing to pay them appropriate
minimum wage, and failing to provide proper wage statements.
The Plaintiff has been employed as a certified nurse's assistant by
the Defendants at their Medford, Oregon and Grants Pass, Oregon
locations since September 2020.
Avalon Health Care Hearthstone LLC is an operator of nursing homes
and long-term care facilities in Oregon.
Avalon Health Care Royale Gardens LLC is an operator of nursing
homes and long-term care facilities in Oregon.
Staffers LLC is a provider of staffing solutions to healthcare
facilities in Oregon. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Sullivan, Esq.
BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP
921 SW Washington Street, Suite 516
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 974-5023
Facsimile: (971) 230-0337
E-mail: dana@baaslaw.com
- and –
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell St, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
B COMMUNICATIONS: Distribution Plan in Rex & Roberta Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REX AND ROBERTA LING LIVING TRUST u/a DECEMBER 6,
1990, as AMENDED, JOHN TAYLOR JONES, and DAVID THOMAS JONES,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. B COMMUNICATIONS LTD., EUROCOM COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,
SHAUL ELOVITCH, and OR ELOVITCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04937
(JPO) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted the Lead Plaintiffs'
Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan.
Lead Plaintiffs Rex and Roberta Ling Living Trust u/a December 6,
1990, as Amended, John Taylor Jones, and David Thomas Jones,
through their counsel, moved the Court for an order approving the
Distribution Plan in the class action.
Having reviewed and considered all the materials and arguments
submitted in support of the motion, including the Declaration of
Josephine Bravata in Support of the Plaintiffs' Motion, Judge
Oetken approved the proposed plan for distributing the Net
Settlement Fund as set forth in the Bravata Declaration to
Authorized Claimants.
The Judge adopted the following:
a. The administrative recommendations of the Court-approved
Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services (SCS or Claims
Administrator) to accept the Timely, Properly Documented Claims set
forth in Exhibit B to the Bravata Declaration; and
b. The Claims Administrator's administrative recommendations
to reject the inadequately documented claims that have not been
successfully cured and wholly ineligible Claims as set forth in
Exhibits D and E to the Bravata Declaration.
SCS is directed to distribute 100% of the Net Settlement Fund to
Authorized Claimants who would receive at least $10 based on their
pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund, which is based on each
Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim as compared to the Total
Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants as set forth in
paragraph 9(a)-(b) of the Bravata Declaration and the
Court-approved Plan of Allocation.
In order to encourage Authorized Claimants to promptly cash their
checks, all Distribution checks will bear the following notation:
"CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180 DAYS AFTER
ISSUE DATE."
Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Distribution checks
within the time allotted will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from
the Settlement unless good cause is shown, and the funds allocated
to all such stale-dated checks will be available to be
re-distributed to other Authorized Claimants, if the Lead Counsel,
in consultation with SCS, determine that it is cost-effective to
conduct a second distribution. Similarly, the Authorized Claimants
who do not cash their second or subsequent distributions (should
such distributions occur) within the time allotted will irrevocably
forfeit any further recovery from the Net Settlement Fund unless
good cause is shown.
After SCS has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have
Authorized Claimants cash their Distribution checks, but no earlier
than six months after the Distribution, SCS shall, if the Lead
Counsel, in consultation with SCS, determine that it is cost
effective to do so, conduct a second distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund (the Second Distribution), in which any amounts
remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the Distribution, after
deducting SCS's fees and expenses incurred in connection with
administering the Settlement for which it has not yet been paid
(including the estimated costs of such Second Distribution), and
after the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing
appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, will be distributed
to all Authorized Claimants in the Distribution who cashed their
Distribution check and who would receive at least $10 from such
re-distribution based on their pro rata share of the remaining
funds. Additional re-distributions, after deduction of costs and
expenses as described above and subject to the same conditions, may
occur until Lead Counsel, in consultation with SCS, determine that
further re-distribution is not cost effective.
At such time as the Lead Counsel, in consultation with SCS,
determines that further re-distribution of the funds remaining in
the Net Settlement Fund is not cost effective, and if any funds
will remain in the Net Settlement Fund after the payment of any
unpaid fees or expenses incurred in connection with administering
the Net Settlement Fund and after the payment of any estimated
taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any
escrow fees, will be contributed to non-sectarian, not-for-profit
organization(s), to be recommended by Lead Counsel and approved by
the Court.
No new Claims will be accepted after Aug. 17, 2020, and no further
adjustments to Claims received by Aug. 17, 2020 that would result
in an increased recognized claim amount will be made for any
reason. No responses to deficiency and/or rejection notices
received after Jan. 12, 2021, will be accepted.
All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,
tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the claims
submitted herein or otherwise involved in the administration or
taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund are
released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such
involvement, and all the Settlement Class Members, whether or not
they are to receive payment from the Net Settlement Fund, are
barred from making any further claim against the Net Settlement
Fund or the released persons beyond the amount allocated to them
pursuant to the Court's order.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, one year after the final
distribution date, SCS will destroy the paper copies of the Proofs
of Claim and all supporting documentation and, three years after
all funds have been distributed, SCS will destroy electronic copies
of the same.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/k7t2px83 from Leagle.com.
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seresto Collars Harmful to Pets, Knudson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY KNUDSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC and ELANCO ANIMAL
HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-03108-DPR (W.D. Miss.,
May 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose to
consumers, including the Plaintiff, about the safety risks posed by
the Seresto brand flea and tick collars to dogs and cats. The
Seresto products purport to prevent fleas and ticks on dogs and
cats by releasing small amounts of pesticides onto the pets over
time. However, the harm inflicted by Seresto Collars far outweighs
any benefits of flea or tick prevention that the products might
offer. As a result of the Defendants' alleged active concealment of
the hazards associated with use of the Seresto Collars, the
Plaintiff and Class members did not receive the benefit of their
bargain and suffered damages.
Bayer Healthcare LLC is a manufacturer of healthcare and medical
products based in Whippany, New Jersey.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
which produces medicines and vaccinations for pets and livestock,
headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
BELFOR USA: Faces Hatcher Investments Suit Over Rental Overcharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HATCHER INVESTMENTS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELFOR USA GROUP, INC. d/b/a
BELFOR PROPERTY RESTORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-11005-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., May 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
fraudulent nondisclosure.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of overcharging its
customers, including the Plaintiff, for the equipment rentals that
it uses to restore their property. The Defendant knew or should
have known that it significantly upcharged for equipment rentals
and that it rented the exact same equipment for a significantly
less amount than it charged its customers. The Plaintiff and Class
members employed a third person to make an examination in order to
discover the truth about the Defendant's billing practices because
of their lack of access to that information. As a result of the
Defendant's alleged nondisclosures, the Plaintiff and Class members
were damaged.
Hatcher Investments, LLC is the owner of a building and real estate
located at 110-112 E. Kansas in downtown Liberty, Missouri.
Belfor USA Group, Inc., doing business as Belfor Property
Restoration, is a provider of integrated disaster recovery and
property restoration services, headquartered in Birmingham,
Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam G. Taub, Esq.
ADAM G. TAUB & ASSOCIATES CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLC
17200 West 10 Mile Rd. Suite 200
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 746-3790
E-mail: adamgtaub@clgplc.net
- and –
Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
MCINNES LAW LLC
1900 West 75th Street, Suite 220
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 220-2488
Facsimile: (913) 347-7333
E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com
- and –
A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
1900 West 75th Street, Suite 220
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (816) 399-5510
Facsimile: (816) 221-2508
E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com
BRITISH STANDARDS: Williams-Bell Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Maria Williams-Bell filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MARIA WILLIAMS-BELL, on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05386, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Plaintiff Maria Williams-Bell brought this suit against her former
employer, BSI Group America, Inc. (improperly named in the
complaint as "British Standards Institution, Inc.") alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 209, et seq. and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"),
820 ILCS 501/1, et seq.
Ms. Williams-Bell seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated March 31, 2021, denying as moot her motion for
conditional certification of a collective action.
The appellate case is captioned as Maria Williams-Bell v. British
Standards Institution, Inc., Case No. 21-1777, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 3, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the appellate case states that:
-- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Maria Williams-Bell
by May 7, 2021;
-- Transcript information sheet is due by May 17, 2021; and
-- Appellant's brief due on or before June 14, 2021 for Maria
Williams-Bell.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MARIA WILLIAMS-BELL, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
Defendant-Appellee BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, INC. is
represented by:
Raanon Gal, Esq.
TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP
1600 Parkwood Circle
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 434-6868
E-mail: rgal@taylorenglish.com
CALIFORNIA FACULTY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Brice Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM D. BRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CALIFORNIA
FACULTY ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-56164 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the
district court's judgment dismissing the lawsuit.
The judgment dismissed Brice's 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 putative
class action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of
compulsory agency fees (also known as fair share fees) paid to the
California Faculty Association.
The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo the district court's dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). It concludes that the
district court properly dismissed Brice's action because a public
sector union can, as a matter of law, "invoke an affirmative
defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under
section 1983 for the agency fees it collected" prior to the Supreme
Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018).
The Ninth Circuit does not consider matters not specifically and
distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/eftw99z8 from Leagle.com.
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Bid to Dismiss Purported Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the agreed motion to
dismiss the purported class action suit related to the company's
handset repair services, is pending.
A purported class action was filed with the Tel-Aviv District Court
on January 2021, alleging the company unlawfully and in violation
of the agreement, did not inform its handset repair services
customers who hold water and dust resistance phones, that once the
phones are repaired, they will no longer be so resistant.
The total amount claimed should it be approved as class action, was
estimated by the plaintiff at over NIS 50 million.
In April 2021, the parties submitted an agreed motion for the
dismissal of the purported class action.
Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli
communications group, providing a wide range of communications
services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider,
providing its approximately 2.805 million cellular subscribers (as
at September 30, 2017) with a broad range of services including
cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for
its subscribers abroad text and multimedia messaging, advanced
cellular content and data services and other value-added services
in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom
Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure.
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the order
of dismissal of the motion for class certification, is pending.
A purported class action was filed with the Tel-Aviv District Court
on May 2011, alleging the company violated the provisions of its
license by engaging in price discrimination towards its customers.
In December 2019 the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action was dismissed by the District Court and in February 202,0
the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court.
A hearing was held in February 2021 and is awaiting judgment.
The total amount claimed should it be approved as class action, was
estimated by the plaintiff at NIS 150 million.
Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli
communications group, providing a wide range of communications
services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider,
providing its approximately 2.805 million cellular subscribers (as
at September 30, 2017) with a broad range of services including
cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for
its subscribers abroad text and multimedia messaging, advanced
cellular content and data services and other value-added services
in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom
Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure.
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suit on Content of Data Package Abroad Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit related to content of data
package abroad.
A purported class action was filed with the Tel-Aviv District Court
on April 2020, alleging the company misled its customers regarding
the content of data package abroad and breached its agreement with
them.
The total amount claimed should it be approved as class action, was
estimated by the plaintiff at NIS 82 million.
Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli
communications group, providing a wide range of communications
services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider,
providing its approximately 2.805 million cellular subscribers (as
at September 30, 2017) with a broad range of services including
cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for
its subscribers abroad text and multimedia messaging, advanced
cellular content and data services and other value-added services
in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom
Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure.
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suit on Unlawful Charging Scheme Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit related to the alleged
unlawful charging to its customers for third party content
services.
A purported class action was filed with the Tel-Aviv District Court
on November 2010, alleging the company unlawfully charged its
customers for third party content services.
This motion is heard together with two additional certification
motions concerning the content services from July 2014 and November
2019.
The total amount claimed should it be approved as class action, was
estimated by the plaintiff at NIS 300 million.
Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli
communications group, providing a wide range of communications
services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider,
providing its approximately 2.805 million cellular subscribers (as
at September 30, 2017) with a broad range of services including
cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for
its subscribers abroad text and multimedia messaging, advanced
cellular content and data services and other value-added services
in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom
Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure.
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unlawful Charging Related Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit related to its alleged
unlawful charges for third party content services.
A purported class action was filed against the company and two
other cellular operators with the Tel-Aviv District Court on
November 2019, alleging unlawful charges for third party content
services.
In December 2020 the plaintiff informed the Court it accepts the
Court's recommendation to strike the motion.
The total amount claimed should it be approved as class action, was
estimated by the plaintiff at NIS 400 million.
Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli
communications group, providing a wide range of communications
services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider,
providing its approximately 2.805 million cellular subscribers (as
at September 30, 2017) with a broad range of services including
cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for
its subscribers abroad text and multimedia messaging, advanced
cellular content and data services and other value-added services
in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom
Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure.
CENTENE CORP: Faces Data Breach Related Putative Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces
putative class action suits related to data breach involving
Accellion Inc.'s File Transfer Appliance.
On April 6, 2021, a putative California class action, Vunisa v.
Health Net, LLC et al., was filed in Santa Clara County Superior
Court against the Company and its subsidiaries, Health Net, LLC,
Health Net of California, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Company,
Health Net Community Solutions, Inc., and California Health &
Wellness, and third-party vendor Accellion, Inc.
On April 23, 2021, a putative nationwide class action, Doe v.
Health Net of California, Inc. et al., was filed in federal
district court in the Northern District of California against
Health Net of California, Health Net, LLC, and Accellion.
The complaints in those lawsuits allege that the defendants failed
to prevent Health Net members' personal and health data from being
exposed in connection with a data breach involving Accellion's File
Transfer Appliance. The putative classes seek unspecified damages
and injunctive relief.
The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims in both lawsuits.
The Company also maintains that Accellion is required to indemnify
it and its subsidiaries against any claims arising out of the data
breach.
Centene said, "While these matters are subject to many
uncertainties, the Company does not believe that an adverse outcome
in either of these matters is likely to have a materially adverse
impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations
and cash flows."
Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a
healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to
government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured
and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two
segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides
member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in
accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social
services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also
provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist
members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company
is based in St. Louis, Missouri.
CHINA ZENIX: Documentation of Proposed Class Settlement Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
China Zenix Auto International Limited said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
proposed class action settlement is currently being documented and
will be submitted to the Court for review and approval.
On October 31, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws with respect to the
delisting of the Company's shares on the New York Stock Exchange.
The complaint was later amended by the plaintiffs. On or about June
24, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety on the grounds that it failed to state a claim and
that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual
defendants. The motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied
in part, by the Court in June 2020.
The parties then conducted limited document discovery regarding the
remaining claims. Subsequently, the parties engaged in mediation
regarding a possible resolution of all claims asserted in the class
action lawsuit.
As a product of the mediation, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the class action lawsuit for a payment of
US$1.8 million, a portion of which will be paid by the Company's
insurance carrier.
The proposed class action settlement is currently being documented
and will be submitted to the Court for review and approval.
The Company is unable to predict with any reasonable degree of
certainty whether the proposed settlement ultimately will be
approved by the Court.
China Zenix said, "Other than the aforementioned action, the
Company is currently not a party to, and is not aware of any threat
of, any legal, arbitral or administrative proceedings, which, in
the opinion of the Company's management, is likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations. The Company may from time to
time become a party to various legal, arbitral or administrative
proceedings arising in the ordinary course of the Company's
business."
China Zenix Auto International Limited designs, manufactures, and
sells commercial vehicle wheels to aftermarket and original
equipment manufacturers in the People's Republic of China and
internationally. China Zenix Auto International Limited was
founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Zhangzhou, the People's
Republic of China. China Zenix Auto International Limited is a
subsidiary of Newrace Limited.
CONTAINER SPECIALTIES: Faces Trost FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE G. TROST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTAINER SPECIALTIES INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02439 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's manufacturing facility as a
non-exempt employee in Illinois for a number of months.
Container Specialties Inc. is a packaging and containers company
based in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Telephone: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
E-mail: Attorneyireland@gmail.com
CORR CONTEMPORARY: Faces Chubac Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN CHUBAC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORR CONTEMPORARY HOMES LLC; JAMES CORR; and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV17005 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to
pay wages when employment ends, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
and failure to reimburse business expenses.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a carpenter from late
2018/early 2019 until December 2020.
Corr Contemporary Homes LLC is a construction firm based in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
CRESCO LABS: Dutcher et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JANICE DUTCHER and STACY NEGLEY, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
CRESCO LABS, INC. and CRESCO LABS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-02106 (N.D. Ill., April 19, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Massachusetts wage and hour laws, breach of contract,
and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Cultivation
Employees at the Defendants' cultivation center and dispensary in
Massachusetts.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not compensate them
and other similarly situated employees for the mandatory pre-shift
and post-shift donning and doffing process, which is an integral
and indispensable part of their principal work activities. As a
result of the aforementioned unlawful policy of the Defendants,
although the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not
properly paid for their lawfully earned overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
hours worked over 40 per week, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs bring this collective and class action complaint
against to recover damages from the Defendants for unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
incurred, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court deems appropriate.
The Corporate Defendants cultivate, manufacture and sell cannabis
and medical cannabis products in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MC 48076
Tel: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
kstoops@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
- and –
Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC
7 North Street, Suite 307
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Tel: (413) 418-4176
E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com
CRIMCHECK HOLDINGS: Espinoza Sues Over Furnished Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMIS J. ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRIMCHECK HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-21692 (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, Crimcheck furnished consumer reports to
Peoplease, LLC with knowledge Peoplease's employer/clients, not
Peoplease, used such consumer reports for employment purposes.
However, Crimcheck furnished the consumer reports without
certification from Peoplease's clients that they would abide by the
FCRA's disclosure, authorization and notice requirements.
Crimcheck Holdings, LLC is a provider of background check services
based in Strongsville, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
DANIEL PINAR: Improperly Pays Dental Assistants, Salas Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SALAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DANIEL PINAR D.D.S., DENTAL CORPORATION; PINAR &
WAGNER; DANIEL PINAR D.D.S.; DAVID WAGNER D.D.S.; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV17002 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for
all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to pay wages
when employment ends, failure to maintain accurate records, failure
to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, and failure to
reimburse business expenses.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dental assistant from
January 2017 to January 28, 2021.
Daniel Pinar D.D.S., Dental Corporation is a dental services
provider doing business in California.
Pinar & Wagner is a dental firm in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
DELI MANAGEMENT: Faces Urban Suit Over Assistant Managers' OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW URBAN and VAN WARNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DELI MANAGEMENT, INC.,
d/b/a JASON'S DELI, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00209 (W.D.N.C.,
May 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act by failing to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated assistant managers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Mr. Urban and Mr. Warner worked for the Defendant as assistant
managers in Charlotte, North Carolina from approximately January
2015 until August 29, 2017 and from approximately January 2016
until April 2017, respectively.
Deli Management, Inc. is the owner and operator of Jason's Deli
restaurants in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone: (704) 612-0038
Facsimile: (704) 612-0038
E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com
corey@gibbonslg.com
- and –
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
DELTA AIR: Eierstock ERISA Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to N.D. Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANITA EIERSTOCK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00269, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on May 6, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01882-CC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing to
provide a compliant notice pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is an airline company headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT: Mireles Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Waiters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN MIRELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.; G & B
HOTEL EMPLOYEE LEASING, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV17037 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay all gratuities
left for, given to and paid to employees; failure to provide
adequate rest breaks; failure to pay rest break premiums; failure
to provide accurate wage statements; and failure to timely pay all
wages upon cessation of employment in violation of the California
Private Attorney General Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a room service waiter at the Defendants'
Hyatt Regency hotel in Valencia, California in 2016 until he was
laid off in March 2020.
Dimension Development Company, Inc. is a hospitality management
company headquartered in Louisiana.
G & B Hotel Employee Leasing, LLC is a hospitality firm based in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
Ari E. Moss, Esq.
Kiara Bramasco, Esq.
MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (310) 982-2984
Facsimile: (818) 963-5954
E-mail: jeremy@mossbollinger.com
dennis@mossbollinger.com
ari@mossbollinger.com
kiara@mossbollinger.com
EBIX INC: Teifke Putative Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Christine Marie
Teifke.
On February 22, 2021, Teifke, a purported purchaser of Ebix, Inc.
securities, filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
herself and others who purchased or acquired Ebix securities
between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021.
The complaint asserts claims against Ebix, Inc., Robin Raina, and
Steven M. Hamil, for purported violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Ebix, Inc. made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about an audit of the company's gift card business in
India and its internal controls over the gift and prepaid card
revenue transaction cycle.
The complaint also asserts a claim against Robin Raina and Steven
M. Hamil for purported violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act arising out of the same facts.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.
Ebix, Inc. provides software and e-commerce solutions to insurance,
finance, healthcare, and e-learning industries. The company was
formerly known as Delphi Systems, Inc. and changed its name to
Ebix, Inc. in December 2003. Ebix, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is
headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia.
EDDIE BAUER: Clark Appeals False Ad Class Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Susan Clark filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN CLARK, for herself and/or on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, and
EDDIE BAUER PARENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01106-JCC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 30, 2020, the
lawsuit is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a false
discount advertising scheme at its Outlet Stores in order to induce
consumers, including the Plaintiff, to purchase its products. Eddie
Bauer's marketing plan is to trick its customers into believing
that its products are worth, and have a value equal to, the
inflated list price, and that the lower advertised sale price
represents a special bargain. In fact, not only are the advertising
savings always false; in many cases the sale price is actually
higher than Eddie Bauer's true regular selling price for the
product. The Defendants' alleged fraudulent practice harms the
Plaintiff and Class members as they pay more than they otherwise
would have paid and buy products that they otherwise would not have
bought.
The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated April 1, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
The appellate case is captioned as Susan Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC,
et al., Case No. 21-35334, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 30, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Susan Clark Mediation Questionnaire was due on May
7, 2021;
-- Appellant Susan Clark opening brief is due on June 28, 2021;
-- Appellees Eddie Bauer LLC and Eddie Bauer Parent, LLC
answering brief is due on July 28, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SUSAN CLARK, for herself and/or on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Che Corrington, Esq.
Daniel Hattis, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS PLLC
400 108th Avenue
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 233-8633
E-mail: che@hattislaw.com
dan@hattislaw.com
- and -
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS PLLC
936 Woodlawn Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Telephone: (805) 233-8062
E-mail: pkl@hattislaw.com
Defendants-Appellees EDDIE BAUER LLC and EDDIE BAUER PARENT, LLC
are represented by:
Anthony Anscombe, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1265
E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com
- and -
Meegan Brooks, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 365-6700
E-mail: mbrooks@steptoe.com
- and -
Marc C. Levy, Esq.
Thomas Arthur Shewmake, Esq.
SEED IP LAW GROUP PLLC
701 5th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-4900
E-mail: marcl@seedip.com
tomshewmake@seedip.com
EDISON INT'L: August 9 Bellwether Jury Trial on Woolsey Fire Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a bellwether jury trial
in the Woolsey Fire related suit is currently scheduled for August
9, 2021.
In November 2018, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of SCE's
service territory and caused substantial damage to both residential
and business properties and service outages for SCE customers.
The largest of these fires, known as the Woolsey Fire, originated
in Ventura County and burned acreage located in both Ventura and
Los Angeles Counties.
According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE) information, the Woolsey Fire burned almost 100,000
acres, destroyed an estimated 1,643 structures, damaged an
estimated 364 structures and resulted in three fatalities.
As of April 20, 2021, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) was
aware of at least 313 lawsuits, representing approximately 6,000
plaintiffs, related to the Woolsey Fire naming SCE as a defendant.
Two hundred fifty-three of the 313 lawsuits also name Edison
International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged
control of SCE. At least two of the lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions.
The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other things,
negligence, inverse condemnation, personal injury, wrongful death,
trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities
and health and safety codes.
A bellwether jury trial is currently scheduled for August 9, 2021.
The bellwether trial date may be further delayed to provide SCE and
certain of the individual plaintiffs in the Woolsey Fire litigation
the opportunity to pursue settlements of claims under a program
adopted to promote an efficient and orderly settlement process.
Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California. Edison International, incorporated on April
20, 1987, is the holding company of Southern California Edison
Company (SCE).
EDISON INT'L: Bellwether Trial Related to Two Fires Set for Oct. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the bellwether jury
trial in the suit related to Thomas and Koenigstein Fires, is
currently scheduled for October 18, 2021.
In December 2017, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of
Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service territory,
causing loss of life, substantial damage to both residential and
business properties, and service outages for SCE customers. The
Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) and the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) have determined that the
largest of the 2017 fires originated on December 4, 2017, in the
Anlauf Canyon area of Ventura County (the investigating agencies
refer to this fire as the "Thomas Fire"), followed shortly
thereafter by the Koenigstein Fire. According to CAL FIRE, the
Thomas and Koenigstein Fires burned over 280,000 acres, destroyed
or damages an estimated 1,343 structures and resulted in two
fatalities.
As of April 20, 2021, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) was
aware of at least 269 lawsuits, representing approximately 3,000
plaintiffs, related to the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires naming SCE
as a defendant.
One hundred forty of the 269 lawsuits also name Edison
International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged
control of SCE. At least four of the lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions.
The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other
things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private
nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and
safety codes.
An initial trial for a limited number of plaintiffs, sometimes
referred to as a bellwether trial, on certain fire only matters is
currently scheduled for October 18, 2021.
The bellwether trial date may be further delayed to provide SCE and
certain of the individual plaintiffs in the Thomas and Koenigstein
Fire litigation the opportunity to pursue settlements of claims
under a program adopted to promote an efficient and orderly
settlement process.
Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California. Edison International, incorporated on April
20, 1987, is the holding company of Southern California Edison
Company (SCE).
ENPHASE ENERGY: Hearing on Bid to Nix Hurst Suit Set for July 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enphase Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the hearing on the
motion to dismiss filed in the securities class action suit
initiated by Gregory A. Hurst, is scheduled for July 29, 2021.
On or about June 17, 2020, Hurst filed a securities class action
lawsuit against the company, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of
those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, he seeks to recover
damages on behalf of himself and other persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock during the putative class
period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered
financial harm as a result.
The court appointed Plaintiff as the Lead Plaintiff on November 30,
2020.
On December 7, 2020, the court granted the parties' stipulation
setting the schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and
Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss.
On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
Defendants asserting substantially the same allegations as the
original complaint purportedly on behalf of individuals who
purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock between
February 26, 2019 and June 16, 2020.
On February 19, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. A
hearing on that motion is scheduled for July 29, 2021.
Enphase said, "We dispute all allegations, intend to defend the
matter vigorously and believe the claims are without merit."
Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company. The
company delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar
generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform.
The company revolutionized the solar industry with their
microinverter technology and it produces a fully integrated
solar-plus-storage solution. The company is based in Fremont,
California.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Etengoff Appeals Case Dismissal to NY Supreme Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bracha Etengoff filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled BRACHA ETENGOFF, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS,
INC., EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, CIGNA CORPORATION, and
EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE HMO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 154448/2019, in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action alleging unfair business practices and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding prescription
medication pricing, against Defendants.
In March of 2017, Plaintiff noticed that the price for one of her
prescription medications had more than tripled, from the usual $10
co pay to a new price of $35.87. The pharmacist had no explanation
for the increased price, which Plaintiff was forced to pay because
she needed access to her medication immediately. Shortly
thereafter, Plaintiff telephoned Empire and was told that the
reason for the price increase was that Plaintiff had not opted out
of the Express Scripts mail order drug program, even though no
increased cost or penalty was ever disclosed to her. Plaintiff then
expressed her desire to "opt out" and explained that she did not
wish to participate in any mail order drug program because, among
other reasons, her prescription dosage could change month to month.
The Express Scripts mail order program provides a 90 day supply.
The Empire representative then explained that Plaintiff could
request a refund for the additional cost of her medication, but
there was no online procedure for making such a request, and the
request might not be approved. Instead, Plaintiff would have to
request that a claim form be sent to her by mail, and would need to
provide the label from the prescription bag as well as the
pharmacist's original signature. Upon information and belief,
Empire already had this information because it had covered
Plaintiff's earlier prescriptions for the same drug at the same
pharmacy at the original price, notes the complaint.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Order and Judgment entered
by the Hon. Andrew Borrok, J.S.C., on November 5, 2020, granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as BRACHA ETENGOFF v. EXPRESS
SCRIPTS, INC. et al., Case No. 2021-01539, in the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First
Department, filed on May 3, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BRACHA ETENGOFF, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Gloria K. Melwani, Esq.
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: kaufman@whafh.com
rifkin@whafh.com
melwani@whafh.com
- and -
Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (646) 599-9848
F&M CONSTRUCTION: Garrido Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------------
EFREN GARRIDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. F&M CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. and
FODIE M. KOITA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04084 (S.D.N.Y., May
6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
for all hours worked, failure to provide a wage notice, and failure
to provide accurate wage statements.
Mr. Garrido was employed by the Defendants as a laborer at a
residential construction site located at 427 East 90th Street, New
York, New York from August 12, 2020 until October 6, 2020.
F&M Construction and Development Corp. is a construction firm, with
its principal executive office located at 2214 Frederick Douglas
Boulevard, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Reilly, Esq.
Keith E. Williams, Esq.
NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
4242 Merrick Road
Massapequa, NY 11758
Telephone: (516) 228-5100
E-mail: justin@nhglaw.com
keith@nhglaw.com
FIBROGEN INC: Misleads Investors to Inflate Stock Price, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIBROGEN, INC., ENRIQUE CONTERNO, JAMES
SCHOENECK, and K. PEONY YU, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03370
(N.D. Cal., May 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding Fibrogen's new drug application (NDA) for the
use of Roxadustat (Roxa) in patients with chronic kidney disease
(CKD) in order to artificially inflate prices of FibroGen common
stock between October 18, 2017 and April 6, 2021. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements or failed to
disclose that: (i) based on the safety data from FibroGen's two
Phase 3 trials in China, any safety data obtained from the global
Phase 3 trials would require post-hoc changes to the stratification
factors to meet the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
requirements; (ii) FibroGen's disclosures of U.S. primary
cardiovascular safety analyses from the Roxa global Phase 3 program
for the treatment of anemia certain safety analyses submitted in
connection with CKD included post-hoc changes to the stratification
factors; (iii) FibroGen's analyses with the prespecified
stratification factors resulted in higher hazard ratios (point
estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals; (iv)
based on these analyses, FibroGen could not conclude that Roxa
reduces the risk of (or is superior to) Major Adverse Cardiac
Events (MACE+) in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis
compared to epoetin-alfa; (v) as a result, FibroGen faced
significant uncertainty that its NDA for Roxa as a treatment for
anemia of CKD would be approved by the FDA; and (vi) as a result of
the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times,
the suit asserts.
After disclosure of the Defendants' alleged false and misleading
statements and/or materialization of their concealed risks,
FibroGen securities suffered a precipitous decline in market value,
thereby causing significant losses and damages to the Plaintiff and
the Class.
Fibrogen, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in San Francisco,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
Constantine P. Economides, Esq.
ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 971-5943
E-mail: ingo@rcfllp.com
vel@rcfllp.com
ceconomides@rcfllp.com
- and –
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 303-1964
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
FIBROGEN INC: Pension Plan Sues Over 68% Drop of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
IBEW LOCAL 353 PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIBROGEN, INC., ENRIQUE CONTERNO,
JAMES A. SCHOENECK, and K. PEONY YU, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-03396 (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding Fibrogen's new drug application for the use of
Roxadustat in patients with chronic kidney disease in order to
artificially inflate prices of FibroGen common stock between
December 20, 2018 and April 6, 2021. In reality, FibroGen had
manipulated the data from the Phase 3 study to make Roxadustat
appear safer and more effective than the standard of care for the
treatment of chronic kidney disease, Epogen, the suit alleges.
When the truth emerged, the company's stock price declined by
$12.46 per share, or 25% on March 1, 2021 and fell another $14.90
per share, or 43% on April 6, 2021.
Fibrogen, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in San Francisco,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
- and –
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
Brittney N. Balser, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
brittney.balser@blbglaw.com
FOGO DE CHAO: Denied Promotion to Female Employees, Hyska Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELENA HYSKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA NAPERVILLE LLC,
FOGO DE CHAO INC., and FOGO DE CHAO HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02365 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for sex discrimination in promotions
pursuant to Tile VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and age
discrimination in promotion pursuant to the Age Discrimination and
Employment Act.
Ms. Hyska has worked for the Defendants as an assistant manager.
She has repeatedly applied for a general manager position only to
be denied the job in favor of less experienced, less qualified men
in their 20's and 30's. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
denial of her promotion to the general manager position, Ms. Hyska
has lost substantial employment pay and benefits and has suffered
significant emotional distress.
Fogo de Chao Naperville LLC is an operator of the Fogo de Chao
restaurants in Illinois.
Fogo de Chao Inc. is an operator of the Fogo de Chao restaurants in
Illinois.
Fogo de Chao Holdings, Inc. is an operator of the Fogo de Chao
restaurants in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Strauss, Esq.
5525 S. Woodlawn Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637
Telephone: (312) 751-1170
E-mail: pstr1968@gmail.com
- and –
Jamie S. Franklin, Esq.
The Civil Litigation Clinic
Chicago-Kent College of Law
565 West Adams Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 906-5048
Facsimile: (773) 696-1478
E-mail: jfranklin5@kentlaw.iit.edu
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Hogan Sues Over Denied Account Info Requests
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY HOGAN and DANIEL ALTMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00782 (C.D. Cal., May 3,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide the
Plaintiffs and Class members with timely responses to their
qualified written requests and failure to provide them the audio
recordings they requested. Despite the Plaintiffs' effort to inform
the Defendant of its alleged failure, it continues to deny
Plaintiffs' and other borrowers' reasonable requests for account
information.
Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage lender headquartered at
951 Yamato Road, Suite 175, Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and –
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
GENERAL MILLS: Cheese Products Contain Phthalates, Franklin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. General Mills Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01781 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 1, 2021) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading
business practices of General Mills with respect to the marketing
and sales of the following list of Defendant's products throughout
the State of New York and throughout the country including:
--Shells & White Cheddar Mac & Cheese;
--Organic Shells & White Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Classic Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Organic Classic Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Shells & Real Aged Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Organic Shells & Real Aged Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Organic Macaroni & Cheese Classic Cheddar Cheese with 12g
Protein
--Gluten Free Rice Pasta & Cheddar Mac
--Rice Pasta Shells & White Cheddar
--Red Lentil Spirals & White Cheddar
--Organic Shells & White Cheddar Mac & Cheese with Whole Grains
--Organic Farm Friends & Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Organic Grass Fed Shells & White Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Organic Grass Fed Shells & Real Aged Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Organic Mac & Bees Mac & Cheese; Mac & Trees Mac & Cheese
--Quinoa Rice Pasta & White Cheddar
--Reduced Sodium Mac & Cheese
--Organic Peace Pasta & Parmesan Mac & Cheese
--Spirals With Butter & Parmesan
--Organic Alfredo Shells & Cheddar Mac & Cheese
--Penne & Four Cheese Mac & Cheese
--Bunny Pasta with Yummy Cheese Mac & Cheese
--Organic Grass Fed Classic Cheddar Mac & Cheese
According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to disclose on the
Products' packaging and labels (the one place that all consumers
view when purchasing a product) that the Products contain
"ortho-phthalates," also known as "phthalates."
Allegedly, the Phthalates are dangerous and harmful chemicals when
consumed, especially by pregnant women and children. In the past
few years, researchers have linked phthalates to asthma,
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, breast cancer, obesity
and type II diabetes, low IQ, neurodevelopmental issues, behavioral
issues, autism spectrum disorders, altered reproductive development
and male fertility issues.
The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products
using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims
that appeal to health-conscious consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone:: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Profits From Online Gambling Activities, Solomon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-03227 (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2021) seeks restitution,
damages, an injunction, and other appropriate relief from Google's
ongoing participation in an illegal Internet gambling enterprise.
According to the complaint, despite knowing that DoubleDown Casino
is illegal, Google and the other Platforms continue to maintain a
sizable (30%) financial interest by hosting the game, driving
customers to it, and acting as the bank. Google's financial
interest in the games is akin to the rake that online gambling
sites charge poker players, the suit says.
As such, DoubleDown, Google, and the other Platforms are all liable
as co-conspirators to an illegal gambling enterprise. Moreover,
DoubleDown Casino is just one of more than fifty social casino apps
(the "Illegal Slots") that the Platforms illegally host and profit
from, added the suit.
Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in
Internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily
focused on Web-based search and display advertising tools, search
engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
-and-
Phillip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
GREENSKY INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Belyea Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants GREENSKY, INC., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01693-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 22, 2021,
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denied GreenSky's motion to
compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims.
Elizabeth Belyea, Heidi Barnes, Hazel Lodge, and David Ferguson
brought this putative class action against GreenSky of Georgia, LLC
and GreenSky, LLC, alleging violation of California's consumer
protection, lending and credit services laws.
GreenSky is a "financial technology company" which among other
things acts as a loan servicer for "point-of-sale loans for
consumers to pay for home improvement, home repair, and healthcare
costs." Between 2016 and 2019, each of the Plaintiffs took out one
or more such loans to pay for home repair projects. In each
Plaintiff's case, the contractor or plumber ("merchant") suggested
that he could arrange financing for the home repair/improvement
project. Once the Plaintiff agreed, the merchant "procured a loan"
for the plaintiff using the GreenSky App. Each of these loans was
provided by a third-party bank -- generally, SunTrust Bank (now
Truist) or InTrust Bank -- which was serviced by GreenSky.
Ms. Belyea financed $23,600 through a GreenSky-serviced loan, with
GreenSky transferring those funds directly to the plumber. The loan
carried a 25% APR over seven years of monthly payments, with an
18-month interest-waived promotion. Lodge financed two loans for a
total of $14,607 through a GreenSky-serviced loan, with GreenSky
transferring those funds directly to the plumber. The loans carried
a purported 0% APR over four years of monthly payments. Ferguson
financed two loans for a total of $10,117.50 through the GreenSky
loan program. Each Plaintiff's loan included an undisclosed
merchant fee which was paid directly to GreenSky. As a result of
the unlawful fee, each Plaintiff paid more than they otherwise
would have.
Ms. Belyea filed the putative class action in the Superior Court
for the County of San Francisco against GreenSky, alleging
violations of California's lending and credit services laws, as
well as consumer protection laws. GreenSky thereafter removed the
action to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2)(A) ("CAFA"). Less than a week later, GreenSky
filed a motion to compel arbitration which the Court denied finding
that GreenSky failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that Belyea agreed to arbitrate.
Ms. Belyea thereafter filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, and following GreenSky's stipulation to amendment, the
now operative FAC was filed. The FAC added Heidi Barnes, Hazel
Lodge, and David Ferguson as representative plaintiffs. In response
to the FAC, GreenSky moves to compel arbitration of Belyea, Lodge,
and Ferguson's claims and moves to dismiss Barnes' claims. In
support of its motions to compel arbitration, GreenSky offers
unsigned copies of the Plaintiffs' loan agreements. Each of these
agreements includes Arbitration Provision.
The Defendants are now seeking a review of the Order entered by
Judge Corley denying GreenSky's motion to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiffs' claims..
The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Belyea, et al. v.
GreenSky, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-15805, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 3, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants GreenSky of Georgia, LLC, GreenSky, Inc. and
GreenSky, LLC Mediation Questionnaire is due on May 10, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 28, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on June 28, 2021;
-- Appellants GreenSky of Georgia, LLC, GreenSky, Inc. and
GreenSky, LLC opening brief is due on August 6, 2021;
-- Appellees Heidi Barnes, Elizabeth Belyea, David Ferguson and
Hazel Lodge answering brief is due on September 7, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants GREENSKY, INC., a corporation; GREENSKY OF
GEORGIA, LLC, limited liability company; and GREENSKY, LLC, limited
liability company, are represented by:
Barry Goheen, Esq.
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
4279 Roswell Road
Suite 208, No. 351
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (404) 793-3093
E-mail: barry.goheen@fisherbroyles.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees ELIZABETH BELYEA, HEIDI BARNES, HAZEL LODGE,
and DAVID FERGUSON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Kyla Jenny Gibboney, Esq.
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9709
E-mail: kjg@classlawgroup.com
ehg@classlawgroup.com
amm@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel T. Lebel, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE OF DANIEL T. LEBEL
601 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-6388
Telephone: (415) 488-6540
E-mail: danlebel@consumerlawpractice.com
GRUBHUB INC: Unlimited Free Delivery Ads "Deceptive," Stout Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE STOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. CGC-21-591204 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
May 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for false and
misleading advertising, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California's Unfair Competition and the California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive and untruthful
advertising related to its unlimited free delivery promise to
Grubhub+ monthly subscription service subscribers. The Defendant
promised users who signed up for Grubhub+ monthly subscription
service that they would receive unlimited free delivery on Grubhub
orders over $12. However, in December 2020, the Defendant began
adding additional delivery fees to orders placed by Grubhub+ users,
including the Plaintiff. The imposition of the additional charge to
every order undermines the benefit of the Plaintiff's and Class
members' bargain, the suit asserts.
Grubhub Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared food
ordering and delivery platform that connects diners with local
restaurants, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
HEALTHGRADES OPERATING: Fails to Secure Private Info, Davidson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA DAVIDSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHGRADES OPERATING COMPANY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-RBJ (D. Colo., May 6, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of
privacy by intrusion, violation of the Colorado's Data Security
Laws and the Colorado's Security Breach Notification Laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect consumers' private information following a
data breach. The Defendant also failed to disclose that it did not
have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' private information,
failed to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent
the data breach, and failed to provide the Plaintiff and Class
members prompt and accurate notice of the data breach. As a result
of the Defendants' alleged negligence, the Plaintiff's and Class
members' identities are now at risk.
Healthgrades Operating Company, Inc. is a health technology company
with its principal place of business at 1801 California Street,
Suite 800, Denver, Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
HEBREW HOMES: Millet Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Nurses
---------------------------------------------------------------
BELKIS MILLET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEBREW HOMES HEALTH NETWORK, INC. d/b/a
Plaza Health Network d/b/a University Plaza, and HEBREW HOMES
HEALTH NETWORK FOUNDATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21715
(S.D. Fla., May 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated nurses
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' rehabilitation centers as a
nurse from approximately in or about 2014 through January 30,
2019.
Hebrew Homes Health Network, Inc., doing business as Plaza Health
Network and University Plaza, is a hospital and health care company
with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
Hebrew Homes Health Network Foundation, Inc. is a hospital and
health care company with its principal place of business in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
HUFFMASTER MANAGEMENT: Campbell Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEYHONA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HUFFMASTER MANAGEMENT INC.; HUFFMASTER
CRISIS RESPONSE, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
CV2021-0360, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Yolo, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on May 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00815-JAM-JDP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid wages, unpaid premiums for missed meal breaks
and missed rest breaks, non-compliant wage statements, waiting time
penalties, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair competition.
Huffmaster Management Inc. is a company that provides management
consulting services, headquartered in Michigan.
Huffmaster Crisis Response, Inc. is a provider of strike management
solutions, headquartered in Michigan. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Yesenia M. Gallegos, Esq.
Kevonna J. Ahmad, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Telephone: (310) 277-4110
Facsimile: (310) 277-4730
E-mail: ygallegos@mwe.com
kahmad@mwe.com
HYGEIA INTEGRATED: Natoli Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH NATOLI and FELICIA COUTO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. HYGEIA INTEGRATED HEALTH LLC, MY
THERAPIST LCSW PLLC, DENISE FOULKES, and MICHAEL HARGROVE, Case No.
1:21-cv-02791 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2021) seeks unpaid wages and
unpaid overtime wages based upon the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants employed Ms. Natoli as a Practice Manager from July
2019 until August 2020. The Defendants employed Ms. Couto as a
Practice Assistant from June 2018 until August of 2019.
Defendant Hygeia is a New York Domestic Business Corporation with
its principal place of business located at 3505 Hill Blvd Unit K,
Yorktown Heights, New York.
My Therapist is a New York Domestic Business Corporation with is
principal place of business located at 3505 Hill Blvd Unit K,
Yorktown Heights, New York.
Defendant Ms. Foulkes is the owner, co-founder, chief executive
officer, manager and/or operator of Defendants Hygeia and My
Therapist.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randy E. Kleinman, Esq.
GERSTMAN SCHWARTZ LLP
1399 Franklin Avenue Ste 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 880-8170
Facsimile: (516) 880-9171
E-mail: Rkleinman@gerstmanschwartz.com
IIA NUCLEAR: Faces Howe Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Supervisors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY HOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IIA NUCLEAR SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00443 (W.D. Tex., May 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated supervisors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff began employment with IHI Southwest in December 2005
as a supervisor and continued his employment with the Defendant
when it acquired IHI Southwest. His employment was terminated in
December 2020.
IIA Nuclear Services, Inc. is a provider of nuclear power facility
maintenance services, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
IN-N-OUT BURGER: Becerra Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Butchers
------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS BECERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IN-N-OUT BURGER and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 21STCV17045 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May
6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay final wages, retaliation,
unsafe working conditions, failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements, and unfair business practices.
Mr. Becerra worked for the Defendant as a butcher from
approximately July 13, 2015 until May 25, 2020.
In-N-Out Burger is a regional chain of fast food restaurants doing
business in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rene Potter, Esq.
POTTER HANDY, LLP
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: ReneP@PotterHandy.com
IO INC: Faces Patton Suit Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVALYNN PATTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IO, INC. dba RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-10486 (D.N.J.,
April 30, 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 Plaintiff has an alleged debt
incurred to Patient First specifically for medical services. The
Defendant allegedly contracted with Patient First to collect the
alleged debt. Subsequently on or about January 8, 2021, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter or an initial
contact notice stating a current balance of $248.73, but with an
interest of $0.12 and a Collection Fee of $40.00. The Plaintiff
asserts that she did not agree to such collection charge, and thus
it is not permitted by the agreement creating the debt nor by law.
By making false and misleading representation, the Defendant has
violated Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA, the suit says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint for herself and other similarly
situated persons seeking statutory damages from the Defendant, as
well as actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
IO, Inc. dba Receivable Management Systems is a debt collector.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
ITS LOGISTICS: Guthrie Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEITH GUTHRIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ITS LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 21CV-00786, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for Merced County to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 5,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00516 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 pay minimum wages, failure to separately
pay for rest and recovery periods, failure to provide rest breaks,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, unfair and unlawful competition,
and civil penalties.
ITS Logistics, LLC is a third-party logistics company with its
principal place of business located in Sparks, Nevada. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com
- and –
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
J R RESTAURANT: Sosa Suit Alleges Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TORIBIO GIL SOSA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE J R RESTAURANT GROUP LLC (d/b/a MUSCLE
MAKER GRILL), RYAN JOHNSON, JOSHUA FASS, and DAVID DOE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03418 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
unlawful pay practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker
at the Defendants' Muscle Maker Grill in Manhattan from
approximately February 2020 until on or about October 12, 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment with the
Defendants. However, the Defendants did not properly compensate him
despite he was required to stay later or work longer day than his
usual schedule. Allegedly, the Defendants classified him and other
tipped workers as tipped employees and paid them at a rate that was
lower than the required lower tip-credit when they should have
classified them as non-tipped employees and paid them at the
minimum wage rate. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay him
for the additional time they worked, such as spread of hours pay,
and overtime compensation at the applicable rate required by
federal and state laws. Moreover, the Defendants did not grant the
Plaintiff any breaks or meal periods of any kind; and failed to
provide the Plaintiff with accurate wage statements and with any
notice of his rate of pay, the suit says.
JR Restaurant Group LLC d/b/a Muscle Maker Grill operates a
health-conscious deli owned by Defendant Ryan Johnson. Defendant
Joshua Fass is sued individually in his capacity as a manager of
the Corporate Defendant. Both Individual Defendants possess
operational control over the Corporate Defendant, possess ownership
interests in the Corporate Defendant, or control significant
functions of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
JUUL LABS: Franklin Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Franklin on behalf of her daughter, J.F., individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No.
3:21-cv-02386 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2021) arises from the Defendants
production, promotion, distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette
products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Esfand Nafisi, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco
Telephone: (415) 489-7004
E-mail: enafisi@classlawdc.com
JUUL LABS: Matarazzo Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Matarazzo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02385 (N.D. Calif., April 1,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Esfand Nafisi, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco
Telephone: (415) 489-7004
E-maill enafisi@classlawdc.com
JUUL LABS: Wilhelm Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janece Wilhelm, on behalf of her son. D.L., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No.
3:21-cv-02373 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2021) arises from the Defendants
production, promotion, distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette
products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E.,
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
KLOM KLORM: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Workers, Lopez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS LOPEZ, DAVID MIRANDA, and JOSE BATEN LOPEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KLOM
KLORM, INC. (D/B/A KLOM KLORM), RUDEE RITICHAILERK, and VI TWC
THADCHAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02530 (E.D.N.Y., May 6,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours pay,
failure to provide wage notice, non-compliant wage statements,
unreimbursed business expenses, and unlawful tip deductions.
Plaintiffs Lopez, Miranda, and Baten were employed as delivery
workers at Klom Klorm restaurant located at 181 Wyckoff Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York from approximately July 2019 until on or about
March 2021, from approximately June 2018 until on or about March 1,
2021, and from approximately April 2018 until on or about February
26, 2021, respectively.
Klom Klorm, Inc. is an owner and operator of a Thai restaurant
under the name Klom Klorm located at 181 Wyckoff Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
KNAUF GIPS: Acosta Sues Over Drywall's Damaging Effect to Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
SELENE Y. ACOSTA; AMARILYS DIAZ; MARTIN GARCIA; DENNIS P. GARDNER;
SANDRA K. GARDNER; KARL JUERGEN HARTTMANN; KARL JUERGEN HARTTMANN
o.b.o. HARTTMANN TRUST; WALTER MONTGOMERY; JOE HANSON o.b.o. SAV
HOLDINGS, LLC; ERIK V. STEWART; and, KRISTINA L. STEWART,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO.,
LTD, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01099-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla., May 6,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express
and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a
corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, violation of consumer
protectional acts, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and fraud.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged manufacturing,
marketing, and selling of defective drywall products. The
Defendants' drywall contains sulfur compounds that can cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property. Although the drywall
functions according to its intended purpose as a building
component, it is unfit for this purpose due to the damaging side
effects. As a result of the Defendants' alleged actions and
omissions, each Plaintiff's structures and personal property have
been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall containing the
latent defect and the harmful effects of the sulfur compounds that
exit from the defective drywall.
Knauf GIPS KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems,
headquartered in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd is a manufacturer of building
materials and systems, headquartered in Tianjin, China. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
E-mail: Jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
LYFT INC: Osvatics Is Bound by Arbitration Agreement, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CASSANDRA OSVATICS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYFT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-1426 (KBJ) (D.D.C.), the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion explaining why it
granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and
Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration.
Plaintiff Cassandra Osvatics worked as a driver for the
ride-sharing company Lyft, Inc., in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area from November of 2015 to June of 2018. In May
2020, Osvatics filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Lyft,
alleging that Lyft was engaged in a continuous violation of
District of Columbia law by failing to provide paid sick leave to
its drivers in the District. According to Lyft, however, Osvatics
had agreed to the company's Terms of Service for its drivers, which
require any disputes between Lyft and its drivers to be resolved by
arbitration on an individual basis rather than through the filing
of a lawsuit.
Before the Court at present is Lyft's motion to compel individual
arbitration of Osvatics's claim and to stay the instant proceedings
pending any arbitration between the parties. Lyft contends that the
arbitration agreement and the associated class waiver in its Terms
of Service are valid and, thus, the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA"), requires the Court to enforce the arbitration agreement by
compelling Osvatics to submit this dispute to individual
arbitration.
Ms. Osvatics responds, in part, that the FAA does not apply to her
agreement with Lyft given section 1 of the statute, which provides
that the "contracts of employment" of any "class of workers engaged
in interstate commerce" are categorically exempt from the FAA's
coverage.
On March 31, 2021, the Court issued an Order that granted Lyft's
motion to compel arbitration. The Court issued this Memorandum
Opinion explaining the reasons for that Order.
District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson notes that Osvatics seeks to
avoid arbitration of her claim against Lyft on essentially three
grounds. First, she asserts that she is not bound by the
arbitration clause in Lyft's Terms of Service because she no longer
intended to drive for Lyft when she most recently agreed to the
Terms of Service. Second, she argues that the FAA and its
enforcement provisions do not govern the arbitration agreement here
because Lyft drivers (in the D.C. area or nationally) comprise a
"class of workers engaged in interstate commerce" under the section
1 residual clause. Third, assuming that the FAA does not apply, she
contends that the law of the District of Columbia would not permit
enforcement of the arbitration agreement.
The Court finds that Osvatics's express agreement to abide by
Lyft's Terms of Service, along with her failure to opt out of the
arbitration agreement at any time, is sufficient to establish a
binding agreement between her and Lyft concerning the submission of
disputes to arbitration in lieu of litigation. The Court agrees
with the majority of courts that have considered the section 1
issue that rideshare drivers are not encompassed by section 1's
residual clause, such that their employment contracts are subject
to the FAA. Therefore, the Court concludes that it must compel
arbitration and stay the instant proceedings under the FAA, and,
accordingly, does not reach whether arbitration should be compelled
under District of Columbia law if the FAA did not apply.
Conclusion
A court faced with a motion to compel arbitration must determine
"(1) whether the parties entered into a binding and enforceable
arbitration agreement; and if so, (2) whether the arbitration
agreement encompasses the claims that the plaintiff raised in her
complaint." Only the first question is at issue here, and the Court
has answered in the affirmative, given that Osvatics and Lyft
formed a valid arbitration agreement, and that agreement is
enforceable under the FAA because it is not exempt under section
1.
Accordingly, in its Order issued on March 31, 2021, the Court
granted Lyft's motion to compel individual arbitration and stay
proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to its authority under the
FAA.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/vuw69k9y from
Leagle.com.
MASTER PROPERTY: Faces Galeana Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO GALEANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MASTER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., LAUREL
CANYON SELF STORAGE, INC., and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21STCV16625 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 3, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Private Attorneys' General Act including unpaid wages and overtime,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to keep accurate payroll records and accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages due upon termination of
employment, and failure to indemnify for expenditures or losses in
discharge of duties.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee in the
Defendants' Los Angeles County facilities from September 7, 2004 to
June 22, 2020.
Master Property Management Inc. is a property management company
based in California.
Laurel Canyon Self Storage, Inc. is a self-storage facility in Los
Angeles County, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
Justin Lo, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS, PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (424) 355-8335
Facsimile: (424) 355-8535
E-mail: beyonca@caworklawyer.com
justin@caworklawver.com
MDM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Inspectors' Overtime, Cottrill Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COTTRILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MDM SERVICES CORPORATION and MDM
SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-00817 (C.D. Cal., May
3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated inspectors overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an inspector from
approximately March 2019 until December 2020.
MDM Services Corporation is a construction management firm that
maintains its headquarters in California.
MDM Solutions LLC is a management consulting firm that maintains
its headquarters in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone: (310) 928-1277
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
MED-DATA INC: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Seibel Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET SEIBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MED-DATA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-01489 (S.D. Tex., May 5, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Kansas Statute.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to safeguard and
protect the personal and medical information of its clients'
patients following a data breach that occurred sometime between
December 2018 and September 2019 through December 17, 2020.
Allegedly, the Defendant also failed to: (1) timely detect the data
breach, (2) take adequate steps to prevent and stop the data
breach, (3) disclose the material facts that it did not have
adequate security practices and employee training in place to
safeguard sensitive information, and (5) provide timely and
adequate notice of the data breach. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages.
Med-Data, Inc. is a full-service healthcare revenue cycle
management services provider, headquartered in Spring, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
MILESTONE TECHNOLOGIES: Farthing Class Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE FARTHING, JEREMIAH BURKE, and JARVIS RICHMOND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MILESTONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-21-591251 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., May 4, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code 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 reimburse employees for business expenses,
failure to provide wages when due, and retaliation.
Plaintiffs Farthing, Burke, and Richmond worked for the Defendants
as non-exempt employees since July 2020, October 2020, and October
2020 to April 15, 2021, respectively.
Milestone Technologies, Inc. is a provider of information
technology services in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
(858) 551-1232
MINDFUL TUTOR: Faces Quillin Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
KYLA QUILLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MINDFUL TUTOR, LLC and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-21-591271 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., May 4, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including
misclassification of tutors as independent contractors, failure to
pay minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide off-duty meal periods, failure to provide
off-duty rest periods, failure to pay compensation owed in a prompt
and timely manner, failure to reimburse business-related expenses,
failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to provide
paid sick leave, illegal wage deductions, and failure to provide
proper notice at time of hire.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a tutor in California
from June 2016 to approximately January 2020.
Mindful Tutor, LLC is a provider of tutoring services in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sharon R. Vinick, Esq.
Katherine L. Smith, Esq.
LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 318-7700
Facsimile: (510) 318-7701
E-mail: sharon@levyvinick.com
katherine@levyvinick.com
MORGAN THOMAS: Fails to Properly Pay Staff, Solis Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKAH SOLIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN THOMAS CAVANAUGH, VMD, INC.; MORGAN
CAVANAUGH; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV17060 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code
including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages owed every
pay period, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
maintain accurate records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to
give meal breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as client care
representative from June 2018 to February 2021.
Morgan Thomas Cavanaugh, VMD, Inc. is an animal services company
doing business as True Care for Pets in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
NATIONAL CONTINENTAL: MSP Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1,
LLC, and MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI, a segregated series
of MAO-MSO II LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-24136, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 4,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-00926-DCN to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to honor their
primary payer obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Social Security Act by failing to reimburse
medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile
and other accidents.
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC is a series limited liability
company, with its principal place of business located at 2701 S.
LeJeune Road, 10th Floor, Coral Gables, Florida.
MSPA Claims 1, LLC is a limited liability company, with its
principal place of business at 2701 S. LeJeune Road, Tenth Floor in
Coral Gables, Florida.
MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, Series PMPI, a segregated series of
MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, is a limited liability company, with its
principal place of business at 45 Legion Drive in Cresskill, New
Jersey.
National Continental Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 201, Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive American Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive Select Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, Cleveland, Ohio.
Progressive Express Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road May, W33, Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
Eduardo Bertran Esq.
J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 661-2021
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
alfred@armaslaw.com
- and –
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and –
Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2505
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (312) 593-3354
Facsimile: (504) 355-0089
E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com
NATIONAL TECHNICAL: Downey Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK DOWNEY and ADAM SARDONI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL TECHNICAL
SYSTEMS, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21CV381341 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., May 4, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in
lieu thereof, knowing and intentional failure to comply with
itemized employee wages, failure to pay wages due at separation of
employment, and unfair business practices.
Mr. Downey and Mr. Sardoni were employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employees until September 2019 and October 2020,
respectively, in Los Angeles County, California.
National Technical Systems, Inc. is a testing laboratories company
based in Calabasas, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
Evan S. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101
Calabasas, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 703-8985
Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
alex@gaineslawfirm.com
evan@gaineslawfirm.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Thompson Sues Over Illegal Fund Transfer
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE E. THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC
d/b/a MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00720 (D. Nev., May
2, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Act, the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, negligence, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant illegally withdrew two
additional mortgage payments out of his Wells Fargo account
totaling approximately $3,000 on or about April 24, 2021 although
she has already made her April 2021 mortgage payment to the
Defendant on April 15, 2021.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendant made false representations that it had
permission to withdraw money from his account;
-- The Defendant unlawfully illegally initiated electronic
funds transfers to Wells Fargo Bank without providing her
reasonable advance notice of the amount to be transferred and the
scheduled date of the transfer;
-- The Defendant's failure to timely and adequately respond to
the Plaintiff and Class members' claims of fraudulent and
unauthorized transactions on their accounts is inconsistent with
industry standards;
-- The Defendant failed to honor his electronic funds transfer
authorization agreement; and
-- The Defendant has obtained a benefit as a result of its
unlawful, unfair, and deceptive conduct in the form of the
unauthorized and premature payments.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for actual, treble,
statutory, and punitive damages, as well as an injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems
proper.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC provides mortgage services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norberto J. Cisneros, Esq.
Barbara M. McDonald, Esq.
MADDOX & CISNEROS LLP
3230 S. Buffalo Drive, Suite 108
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Tel: (702) 366-1900
Fax: (702) 366-1999
E-mail: bmcdonal@mic-law.com
- and –
Michael Kind, Esq.
KIND LAW
8860 South Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Tel: (702) 337-2322
- and –
George Haines, Esq.
FREEDOM LAW FIRM, LLC
8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 350
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Tel: (702) 880-5554
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Barfield Suit Over Protesters' Illegal Arrests
------------------------------------------------------------------
GUY BARFIELD II, MALCOM DAEHLER, ELSAM ELGAMAL, SIMON GREENBERG,
DAVID GARNER, and RICHARD VERGARA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
NYPD OFFICERS JOHN DOES #1-47 and JANE DOE #1, Defendants, Case No.
154427/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 6, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the New York State Constitution
and New York laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights by following a strategy of violent
disruption, involving unprovoked brutal attacks and unjustified
arrests of New Yorkers who participated in peaceful protests to
express their opposition to police brutality and systemic racism in
and around Union Square in Manhattan, New York on May 30, 2020.
These illegal arrests were followed by a policy to detain
protestors overnight for hours down at One Police Plaza, Police
Headquarters, in overflowing, unventilated, holding cells rather
than for the customary brief time at local adjacent precincts
nearer to Union Square. As a result of these alleged abuses, the
Plaintiffs, all New York residents, were deprived of their liberty,
property, and constitutional rights under the New York State
Constitution.
The City Of New York is a municipal corporation with its principal
place of business in the County of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
- and –
Joshua Fuld Nessen, Esq.
14 Bradley Road
Weston, CT 06883
Telephone: (646) 712-1920
E-mail: joshuanessen9@gmail.com
NEWREZ LLC: Ross Sues Over Unauthorized Bank Fund Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------
DALE ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC DBA SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE
SERVICING; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03720 (C.D.
Cal., April 30, 2021) alleges violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant committed
illegal actions in debiting the Plaintiff's and also the putative
Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining
a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for
preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the Plaintiff's and
also the putative Class members' accounts.
NewRez LLC provides mortgage loan servicing for institutional
clients investing in portfolios of non-performing, re-performing
and sub-performing residential mortgage loans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: dman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
NEXO FINANCIAL: Jeong Sues Over Suspension of Repayment Option
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUNHAN JEONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NEXO FINANCIAL LLC, NEXO FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEXO
SERVICES OU, NEXO AG, and NEXO CAPITAL INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-02392
(N.D. Cal., April 1, 2021) seeks redress for the nationwide harm
resulting from Nexo's intentional and unjustified suspension on
December 23, 2020, of a critical repayment option on its platform
for using cryptoassets to borrow cash as well as from the resulting
liquidation of the collateral of hundreds of Nexo customers,
causing well over $5 million in damages.
Since April 2018, Nexo has maintained and operated a website
through which customers can use their cryptoassets as collateral to
borrow cash. Using Nexo's "Crypto Credit," a customer takes out a
"fiat loan" by staking any of a variety of cryptoassets in their
"Credit Line Wallet" to serve as collateral and by funding a
"Savings Wallet" to serve as back-up collateral. As of December 23,
the accepted collateral included the digital asset Ripple, also
known as "XRP."
The customer can borrow as much cash as they want as long as they
maintain a particular loan-to-value ("LTV") ratio, the ratio
between the amount of cash borrowed and the value of the collateral
held in the customer's Credit Line Wallet. The value of that
collateral fluctuates with the price of the cryptoassets held as
collateral.
Accordingly, the customer sometimes must stake more digital assets
or pay back on its loan, through the Nexo platform, to maintain the
requisite LTV ratio. If the customer's LTV ratio rises above a
certain threshold, Nexo will -- after providing notice to the
customer -- sell the 20 collateral to bring the LTV ratio back in
line. These sales may result in the liquidation of all of the
customer's cryptoassets held in the Credit Line Wallet and Savings
Wallet, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Nexo (a) does not possess
the unfettered right to change any material conditions for the use
of the Nexo Crypto Credit, to suspend the provision of the Crypto
Credit, or to change, suspend, disable, or discontinue any features
or content of the Crypto Credit; (b) does not possess the
contractual right to take any such steps without notice to its
customers; (c) does not acquire "ownership" over the customers'
collateral; and (d) within its credit services, cannot refuse to
accept XRP from its customers. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Nexo
from taking any such actions.
Plaintiff Junhan Jeong is a resident of California. On December 23,
2020, as a result of Nexo's misconduct, he lost his collateral of
598,384.6188 XRP, at a market value of approximately $269,300 (less
his outstanding loan amount of approximately $169,400); and used
these digital assets in these amounts to pay down his loans:
47,190.47043 XLM (Lumen) (market value of approximately $6,000),
0.009255 BTC (bitcoin) (market value of approximately $215), 6.1673
ETH (Ether) (market value of approximately $3,600), and 168.18851 3
LINK (market value of approximately ($1,800).
Nexo Financial was incorporated in Delaware in June 2018 and
maintains the registered agency address of 251 Little Falls Drive,
Wilmington, Delaware. Nexo is registered with the U.S. Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network as a money services business (or "MSB")
for activity in all fifty states and operates through branches in
at least 24 states, including California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
Edward Normand, Esq.
Stephen Lagos, Esq.
Katherine Eskovitz, Esq.
ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (646) 970-7509
E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com
keskovitz@rcfllp.com
NINA'S HEALTH: Justus Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE JUSTUS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NINA'S HEALTH CARE SERVICES, LLC and GRACE
FONGOD, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02270-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May
4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated home health aides overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Ms. Justus was employed by the Defendants as a home health aide in
or around August 2018.
Nina's Health Care Services, LLC is a home healthcare services
provider based in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
OPERATIONS GROUP: Brasington Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH BRASINGTON JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE OPERATIONS GROUP INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02059 (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the California Industrial
Welfare Commission Order, the California Private Attorneys General
Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law by failing to pay
overtime compensation, failing to reimburse business expenses,
failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and waiting time penalties.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field organizer in Los
Angeles County, California on a project based out of Palmdale,
California from approximately February 13, 2020 until March 4,
2020.
The Operations Group Inc. is a campaign consulting firm with its
principal place of business at 1426 Montrose St., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
P & G LEXINGTON: Guzman Sues Over Delivery Worker's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS GUZMAN RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. P & G LEXINGTON CORP. (D/B/A WRAP-N-RUN
GRILL) and GEORGE PABLONY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02789 (S.D.N.Y., April
1, 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, Mr. Guzman was ostensibly employed as a
delivery worker, but he was required to spend a considerable part
of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not
limited to preparing dressings, cutting vegetables, preparing
chicken, putting together containers, sweeping, mopping, and
cleaning windows (non-tipped duties). The Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate record-keeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the
suit contends.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a gourmet deli, located at
1125 Lexington Ave, New York, NY 10075 under the name "Wrap-N-Run
Grill".[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
PHOENIX, AZ: Class Certification in PLEA Suit Affirmed in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PHOENIX LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION, et
al., Plaintiffs/Appellees v. CITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant/Appellant,
Case No. 1 CA-CV 19-0813 (Ariz. App.), the Court of Appeals of
Arizona, Division One, issued a Memorandum Decision affirming in
part and vacating in part the class certification orders.
The City of Phoenix challenges orders certifying as class actions
claims asserted by Plaintiffs Phoenix Law Enforcement Association
(PLEA), et al., and Plaintiffs Theresa Clark, et al. For the
reasons set forth in the Memorandum Decision, the orders are
affirmed as to certification of both the PLEA class and the Clark
class under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (2021), and of
the PLEA class under Rule 23(b)(3), but the certifications of both
classes under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) are vacated.
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the
Court, in which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D.
Weinzweig joined.
City police officers are members of Arizona's Public Safety
Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS). Under PSPRS, benefits are
based on the employee's "average monthly benefit compensation." The
"average monthly benefit compensation" is calculated using the
monthly "base salary" paid over the consecutive three-year period
that yields the highest average salary.
City police officers, who have not yet been promoted to the rank of
sergeant are members of PLEA. Sergeants and lieutenants are members
of the Phoenix Police Sergeants and Lieutenants Association
(PPSLA). The City collectively bargains with PLEA and PPSLA about
the terms of employment under Arizona's meet and confer ordinances
(Phoenix City Code Sections 2-209 to -222; Sections 2-223 to -235).
Under those ordinances, the City must meet every two years with
PLEA and PPSLA to negotiate new terms of employment. If agreements
are reached, they are memorialized in collective bargaining
agreements: a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for PLEA and a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for PPSLA (collectively, MOUs and
MOAs are referred to here as Collective Bargaining Agreements, or
CBAs). If, however, the parties cannot agree, the City Council or
City Manager imposes terms of employment based on "the interest of
the public employees, public employer, and the public," Phoenix
City Code Sections 2-219(K)(3); -233(B).
Starting in 1988, the MOUs contained provisions that allowed
employees to increase (sometimes called "spike") their pension
benefits by converting vacation time, sick time and uniform
allowances into additional base salary. An employee could elect to
participate in any or all of these wage enhancement provisions by
submitting an election form. If an employee made such an election,
the increased base salary would be used to calculate retirement
benefits under PSPRS, typically leading to a larger pension
benefit. These provisions were renewed in each subsequent MOU
starting in 1988. The MOAs had similar provisions starting in
1990.
In 2014, the City informed PLEA and PPSLA that, given fiscal
issues, it would not agree to renew the wage enhancement provisions
in the new CBAs. The parties did not reach new agreements and no
MOU or MOA was signed. As a result, the City imposed terms of
employment that did not include wage enhancement provisions for
2014-2016.
PLEA, representative members and several individuals (the PLEA
Plaintiffs) sued the City in June 2014 challenging the removal of
the wage enhancement provisions and seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief. In July 2014, PPSLA members, individually and as
class representatives (the Clark Plaintiffs), sued the City making
similar claims and seeking similar relief. In 2015, the Clark
Plaintiffs filed a separate complaint adding claims for promissory
estoppel and failure to pay wages. By mid-2016, all three cases
were consolidated into this case.
In October 2018, the Clark Plaintiffs moved for class
certification. The motion by the Clark Plaintiffs sought class
certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) and (2). In January 2019, the
PLEA Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule
23(b)(1)(B) and (3). The PLEA Plaintiffs and the Clark Plaintiffs
each sought certification of three sub-classes: employees who
elected to participate in the wage enhancement provisions before
July 1, 2014 and who stopped receiving the additional salary, and
two classes of employees who had not yet begun receiving the
benefits.
The City opposed both motions. During the pendency of the motions,
the City also moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Court denied
in part and granted in part the motion for judgment on the
pleadings, barring any claim for relief "unless a plaintiff was
approved and participating in the wage enhancement program on or
before July 1, 2014."
After significant briefing and argument, the superior court granted
the motions for class certification. The court found there are
about 700 class members--nearly 500 in the PLEA Class and more than
200 in the Clark Class. The questions of law and fact common to the
class members identified by the court "relate to whether there is a
contract between [the City] and those participating in the wage
enhancement program . . . and if [the City] must fulfill its
obligations to the plaintiffs." The court found the claims by the
class representatives are typical of claims by the class and the
representatives are adequate. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The court
found the PLEA Class met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1)(B),
(b)(2), and (b)(3), and the Clark Class met the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2).
Based on these findings, the court certified two classes:
(1) a class of PLEA members, consisting of Phoenix Police
Department Unit IV officers who, as of June 30, 2014,
satisfied the requirements of, and elected to participate
in, at least one wage enhancement provision (the PLEA
Class); and
(2) a class of PPLSA members, consisting of Phoenix Police
Department sergeants and lieutenants who, as of June 30,
2014, satisfied the requirements of, and elected to
participate in, at least one wage enhancement provision
(the Clark Class). This court has jurisdiction over the
City's timely appeal challenging the class certifications
pursuant to A.R.S. Section 12-1873(A). Ariz. R. Civ. P.
23(f); Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC, 240 Ariz. 420,
432, 22 (App. 2016).
Judge Samuel Anderson Thumma finds that the the record provides a
proper basis supporting the findings that the Rule 23(a)
prerequisites were met. Rule 23(a) prerequisites are: (1)
numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality and (4)
representativeness (Ariz. R. Civ. P. 23(a)). He also finds that the
Superior Court did not err in certifying the Classes under Rule
23(b)(2), and in certifying the PLEA Class under Rule 23(b)(3).
On this record, Judge Thumma notes, the City has not shown the
court erred in certifying the classes under Rule 23(b)(2), and in
finding the PLEA Plaintiffs satisfied the requirements under Rule
23(b)(3) or erred in certifying the PLEA Class under Rule
23(b)(3).
Judge Thumma, however, holds that class certification under Rule
23(b)(1)(B) was improper. The City argues, among other things, that
the requested declaratory and injunctive relief would not dispose
of other class members' interests, meaning Rule 23(b)(1)(B) does
not apply. To the contrary, the Judge opines, the arguments about
requested declaratory and injunctive relief are obviated by the
Rule 23(b)(2) analysis.
On appeal, the Plaintiffs offer no persuasive rationale for
certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), Judge Thumma finds. The Clark
Plaintiffs assert that the issue of whether the additional salary
payments are pensionable compensation is a statutory question
determined by the court. But they do not explain how the resolution
of that question, which they claim has already been decided by the
court, would support class certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B).
Nor have the Clark Plaintiffs shown how the decision about their
breach of contract claims, "as a practical matter," is "dispositive
to the interests of the other members not parties to the
adjudications."
The PLEA Plaintiffs assert that "any determination that the MOUs or
the Election Forms were or were not breached is entirely
dispositive of each class members' claim." But that argument
assumes a certified class, when the issue presented here is whether
a class properly could be certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), Judge
Thumma states. Even more significantly, the Plaintiffs offer no
case law supporting their assertion that class certification of
this or a similar issue would be proper under Rule 23(b)(1)(B).
For these reasons, certifying the classes under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)
was error and those portions of the court's orders are vacated,
Judge Thumma rules.
Judge Thumma also finds that the City has not shown the notice of
claim issue defeats class certification. He notes that the PLEA
Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint against the City as a
putative class action in June 2014. The Clark Plaintiffs filed
their initial complaint against the City as a putative class action
in July 2014. The cases were consolidated later that month and the
City filed answers in August and September 2014. Substantial motion
practice, briefing and evidentiary hearings began almost
immediately, including on the Plaintiffs' request for temporary
restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
Nearly three and a half years later, in October 2017, the City
moved for judgment on the pleadings based on the PLEA Plaintiffs'
failure to serve a notice of claim. The superior court denied the
motion in February 2018, finding the City's conduct was a waiver
and the City suffered no prejudice by the lack of notice of claim.
In its later class certification orders, the court again stated
that the City was aware of the scope of the litigation from the
beginning. The City sought special action relief of that
determination, and this court declined jurisdiction. The City now
claims class certification was improper given its notice of claim
defense.
Judge Thumma holds that the City has not shown that compliance with
the notice of claim statute defeats class certification here. The
purpose of the notice of claim statute "is to provide the
government entity with an opportunity to investigate the claim,
assess its potential liability, reach a settlement prior to
litigation, budget and plan," citing Havasupai Tribe of Havasupai
Rsrv. v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 220 Ariz. 214, 223 (App. 2008). The
City points to no prejudice or evidence showing the superior court
erred in finding it was not prejudiced by the PLEA Plaintiffs'
failure to comply with the notice of claim statute.
While this appeal was pending, the Arizona Supreme Court issued two
opinions addressing whether one-time payouts for benefits
constituted salary to calculate pension benefits. The City cites
these cases for the proposition that historical promises and
practices do not lead to a vested right to wage enhancement that
was not in the pension plan. The issue in this appeal, however, is
limited to whether the superior court properly certified the
classes, whereas Piccioli and American Federation ruled on the
merits of those claims. The Plaintiffs' claims are, therefore, not
barred by Piccioli or American Federation, Judge Thumma holds.
The City and the Clark Plaintiffs request attorneys' fees and costs
under A.R.S. Sections 12-341, -341.01, and -1840. In the court's
discretion, the requests for fees are denied. The City, however, is
awarded its taxable costs on appeal against both the PLEA
Plaintiffs and the Clark Plaintiffs, contingent upon the City's
compliance with ARCAP 21.
Accordingly, the class certification orders are affirmed as to
certification of both the PLEA Class and the Clark Class under
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and of the PLEA Class
under Rule 23(b)(3). The class certification orders under Rule
23(b)(1)(B) are vacated as to both classes.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision dated April 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5heemsbv from
Leagle.com.
Napier, Coury & Baillie, P.C., in Phoenix, Arizona, Michael Napier
-- mike@napierlawfirm.com -- Eric Wilson --
ewilson@napierlawfirm.com -- Cassidy Bacon --
clbacon@napierlawfirm.com -- Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees PLEA,
Barry Jacobs, Earle Akre, Robert Ramsey, Rick Flum.
Yen Pilch & Landeen, P.C., in Phoenix, Arizona, Caroline A. Pilch,
Robert E. Yen, Michael Pang, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees
Theresa Clark, et al.
Sherman & Howard L.L.C., in Phoenix, Arizona, John Alan Doran --
jdoran@shermanhoward.com -- Matthew A. Hesketh --
mhesketh@shermanhoward.com -- Lindsay H.S. Hesketh --
lhesketh@shermanhoward.com -- Counsel for Defendant/Appellant.
PLANT HEALTH: Faces Toporek Suit Over Mislabeled Products
---------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD TOPOREK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLANT HEALTH, INC. DBA HIGHLAND PHARMS, Case
No. 605396/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., April 30, 2021) seeks to
remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the
Defendant with respect to the marketing and sales of its products.
According to the complaint the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the oral pharmaceutical and nutritional products using
a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that
appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that its products are
"Natural" and "All Natural" however, the Defendant's advertising
and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because
the products contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients.
The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the products
over and above comparable products that did not purport to be
"Natural" and "All Natural." Given that the Plaintiff and Class
Members paid a premium for the products based on the Defendant's
misrepresentations that they are "Natural" and "All Natural," the
Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the
premium paid.
Highland Pharmaceuticals LLC operates a specialty development and
manufacturing company. The Company produces oral pharmaceutical and
nutritional products in non-traditional delivery systems for use in
both human and companion animal healthcare. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
PLS CHECK: Francisco Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Yulda Francisco filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Yulda Francisco, Individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLS Check Cashers of
New York, Inc., Case No. 152084/2020, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 3, 2020, the
lawsuit is brought to recover unpaid wages and unlawful wage
deductions under the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked about 25-35 hours
a week for the Defendant 4-5 days a week as a manual worker
(cashier). The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant failed to
display federal and state minimum wage/overtime posters, as
required by NYLL. The Defendant also failed to notify the Plaintiff
of her federal and state minimum wage and overtime rights and
failed to inform the Plaintiff that she could seek enforcement of
such rights through government enforcement agencies, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Decision and Order
dated March 30, 2021, granting the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Yulda Francisco, Individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLS Check Cashers
of New York, Inc., Case No. 2021-01442, in the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department,
filed on April 24, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Yulda Francisco, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Telephone: (718) 740-1000
Defendant-Appellee PLS Check Cashers of New York, Inc. is
represented by:
Jeffrey Brecher, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
58 South Service Road, Suite 250
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 247 0404
Email: Jeffrey.Brecher@jacksonlewis.com
PLUG POWER: Tank Sues Over 22% Decline of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------
LAXMAN TANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLUG POWER INC., ANDREW MARSH, and PAUL B.
MIDDLETON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03985 (S.D.N.Y., May 4,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission about Plug Power's financial results, business, and
prospects in order to artificially inflate the prices of Plug Power
securities between November 9, 2020 and March 16, 2021.
Specifically, the Defendants concealed material information and
failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had overstated the
carrying amount of right of use assets and finance obligations
associated with leases; (b) the Company had understated the loss
accruals relating to certain service contracts; (c) certain of the
Company's long-lived assets suffered from material impairments,
including right of use assets and fixed assets; (d) the Company had
misclassified certain important costs, resulting in an
overstatement of operating and research and development expenses
and an understatement of revenue costs; (e) the Company suffered
from material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial
reporting; and (f) as a result, the Defendants' public statements
regarding the Company's past financial results were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times, the suit says.
When the truth emerged, the price of Plug Power stock fell $10.10
per share to close at $36.36 per share on March 18, 2021, a decline
of 22% over three trading days.
Plug Power Inc. is a provider of hydrogen fuel cell turnkey
solutions, with its principal executive office located in Latham,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 11747
Telephone: (212) 292-5690
Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com
- and –
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (470) 632-6000
Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
PNC BANK: Appeals Kazi Wage-and-Hour Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PNC BANK, N.A. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled TANSEER KAZI, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PNC BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-04810-JCS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Kazi and Linda Scheid commenced this putative class action
asserting wage and hour violations by Defendant PNC. PNC Mortgage
Loan Officers ("MLOs") received regular pay on a biweekly basis at
all times relevant to this action. In addition to their regular
pay, MLOs could also qualify for monthly "Plan Incentive Pay,"
which consisted, in part, of commissions earned on loan
originations, but was also based on a number of other factors that
together with the commissions resulted in "incentive credits" and
thus incentive pay. The formula was generally governed by a plan
document, one version of which was instituted in 2014 and another
in 2017, as well as an "Addendum A" that was updated at least
annually. While the factors taken into account for incentive pay
changed from time to time, the consistent practice was that all
incentive credits were added together each month and, if the
credits exceeded the monthly threshold, an MLO received Plan
Incentive Pay.
The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Order dated March
15, 2021, granting in part and denying in part both parties'
motions for summary judgment, and narrowing class definition.
The appellate case is captioned as Linda Scheid v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 21-80039, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on May 4, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner PNC BANK, N.A. is represented by:
Patrick Michael Madden, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 623-7580
E-mail: patrick.madden@klgates.com
- and -
Saman Mostafavi Rejali, Esq.
Paul W. Sweeney, Jr., Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-5534
E-mail: saman.rejali@klgates.com
Plaintiff-Respondent LINDA SCHEID, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, is represented by:
Laura L. Ho, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 763-9800
E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
- and -
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
Justin Lee Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 North Kings Highway
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Keirsted Sues Over Toothpaste's Deceptive Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY KEIRSTED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00778-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., May 4, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for false and misleading advertising,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
deceptive advertising and marketing of the Crest brand Gum & Enamel
Repair toothpaste. The Defendant's gum repair representation of the
product is misleading and deceptive due to lack of reasonable basis
or credible substantiation. The Defendant also omitted material
facts, including the fact that the product's active ingredient is
incapable of repairing gums, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations, material
omissions and deceptive practices in its advertising and labeling,
the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered actual injuries from
their purchase of one or more of the product and did not receive
the full value of their purchase.
The Proctor & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300
West Palm Beach, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
Facsimile: (561) 514-0905
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and –
Daniel Faherty, Esq.
TELFER, FAHERTY, & ANDERSON, PL
815 S. Washington Avenue, Suite 201
Titusville, FL 32780
Telephone: (321) 269-6833
Facsimile: (321) 383-9970
E-mail: danfaherty@hotmail.com
CGuntner@ctrfa.com
QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION: Mullur Sues Over Stock Price Decline
--------------------------------------------------------------
BALA MULLUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION F/K/A KENSINGTON
CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP., JAGDEEP SINGH, FRITZ PRINZ, TIMOTHY
HOLME, and KEVIN HETTRICH, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03309 (N.D.
Cal., May 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the strength of QuantumScape's
business, operations, and financial prospects in order to
artificially inflate the prices of QuantumScape publicly traded
securities between November 27, 2020 and April 14, 2021. The
Defendants concealed multiple known risks with QuantumScape's
solid-state battery development and design that rendered the
batteries completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicle performance. When the truth was revealed, QuantumScape's
common stock declined by 40.8%, from a closing price of $84.45 per
share on December 31, 2020 to close at $49.96 per share on January
4, 2021. Moreover, common stock price continued to fall from $40.85
on April 14, 2021 to close at $35.85 on April 15, 2021, the suit
says.
QuantumScape Corporation, formerly known as Kensington Capital
Acquisition Corp., is a manufacturer of solid-state lithium-metal
batteries for electric vehicles, headquartered in San Jose,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
912 Cole Street, #251
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 459-6900
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com
- and –
Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Alexander L. Burns, Esq.
Alayne K. Gobeille, Esq.
Morgan M. Embleton, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com
alayne.gobeille@ksfcounsel.com
morgan.embleton@ksfcounsel.com
RC FL-SHOPPES: Brito Files Suit in S.D. Florida Over ADA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO v. RC FL-SHOPPES AT 104, LLC; KONING RESTAURANTS
INTERNATIONAL, L.C.; HAMMOCKS GRILL, INC.; ARIEL RODRIGUEZ CORP.;
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.; SUBWAY AT 104 SHOPPES LLC; and C&C AMAYA
INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-21245-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 1,
2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated seeking injunctive relief, declaration of
rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. Brito is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA. He is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6
vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major
life activities due to his impairment, including not being able to
walk or stand. Plaintiff requires the use of a wheelchair to
ambulate.
Defendant RC FL-SHOPPES owns, operates and oversees a Commercial
Property, its general parking lot and parking spots. The subject
Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in Miami,
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
According to the complaint, the individual Plaintiff visits the
Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial
Property, regularly, to include visits to the Commercial Property
and businesses located within the Commercial Property on or about
February 25, 2021 and March 31, 2021 encountering multiple
violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and
enjoy the Commercial Property and businesses located therein. The
Plaintiff often visits the Commercial Property and businesses
located within the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of
the goods and services offered there, and because it is
approximately three miles from his residence, and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the Commercial Property and the businesses located within
the Commercial Property within two months of the filing of this
Complaint, specifically on May 8, 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
Beverly Virues, Esq
GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
4937 S.W. 74th Court
Miami, Florida 33155
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
bvirues@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
RCI HOSPITALITY: Underpays Exotic Entertainers, Figueredo Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYTE FIGUEREDO-CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC.,
MIAMI GARDENS SQUARE ONE, INC., and ERIC LANGAN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-21733 (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated exotic entertainers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked as exotic entertainer at Tootsie's Cabaret
located in Miami, Florida from approximately 2009 until
approximately May 11, 2018.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a hospitality holding company
with its principal address in Houston, Texas.
Miami Gardens Square One, Inc. is a night club operator in Miami
Gardens, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Bryan Arbeit, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
barbeit@forthepeople.com
- and –
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: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Restricts Access to Open Markets, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 (S.D. Tex.,
April 1, 2021) seeks judgment against the Defendants for damages
resulting from the Robinhood's purposefully, willfully, and
knowingly restricting access to the open markets in publicly
available securities, and thereby depriving retail investors from
investing additional monies into the market through these
securities, and openly manipulating the open market to the
detriment of all Plaintiffs and the market at large by restricting
purchase -- without universal restrictions across the market by
regulators -- of this non-exhaustive list of tickers $AAL, $AMC,
$BB, $BBY, $CTRM, $EXPR, $GME, $KOSS, $NAKD, $NOK, $SNDL, $TR, and
$TRVG (Restricted Tickers).
Robinhood is a multibillion-dollar mobile application and website
investment service that places stock trade orders on behalf of
users like Plaintiff and Class members. Robinhood allegedly targets
young adults who are new to investing through youth-forward
marketing and a video game-like interface and misleads them into
using Robinhood by promising "commission free" and "discounted"
trading services and assuring them in its Customer Agreements that
all of Robinhood’s transactions will be subject to federal and
state securities laws. Robinhood has been wildly successful, roping
in not only young investors but also novice investors of all ages,
the suit says.
In the early morning hours of January 28, 2021, in the midst of an
unprecedented rise in the per share value of the Restricted
Tickers, Robinhood without providing prior notice to its users or
the market at large restricted solely on its platform the purchase
of the Restricted Tickers. Robinhood did, however, allow its users
to "close their positions." Closing positions, given the
suffocation of additional purchases through the Robinhood app would
be dubious as the price per share of the Restricted Tickers
plummeted, added the suit.
Plaintiff Ferreriro resides in and is a citizen of Coral Gables,
Florida. He is an active trader that uses the Robinhood platform to
access the markets.
Plaintiff Skyler Baird resides in and is a citizen of Salt Lake
City, Utah. He is an active trader that uses the Robinhood
platform.
Plaintiff Memic resides in and is a citizen of Columbia, Missouri.
He is an active trader that uses the Robinhood platform to access
the markets.[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
ROMANOFF FLOOR: $1.4M Class Settlement in Bailey Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONATHAN BAILEY and JOSE CARRASCO JR., on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ROMANOFF FLOOR COVERING, INC., a Corporation; and
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00685-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and
Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards.
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval and Fees Motion came on
for hearing on April 15, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.
The Parties submitted their Class Action Settlement Agreement,
which the Court preliminarily approved in its July 16, 2020 Order.
In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class
Members have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement and
the opportunity to comment on or object to it or to exclude
themselves from its provisions.
Having fully and carefully considered the Settlement Agreement, the
Motion for Final Approval and Fees Motion, the memoranda, evidence,
and declarations filed in support thereof, and the oral arguments
made at the hearing, Judge Nunley granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval and Fees Motion.
The Judge confirmed (i) Plaintiffs Jonathan Bailey and Jose
Carrasco, Jr. as the Class Representatives; (ii) Blumenthal
Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw, LLP, by and through Lead Counsel
Norman Blumenthal, Kyle Nordrehaug, and Aparajit Bhowmik, as the
Class Counsel; and (ii) CPT Group, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator.
The Judge granted, for settlement purposes only, final
certification of the Class consisting of the California Class and
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") Class, as defined:
a. The California Class is defined as all individuals who
worked for Defendant in California as non-exempt employees from
March 30, 2013 up to and through May 1, 2018.
b. The FCRA Class is defined as all prospective employees for
whom Defendant procured a background check during the time period
of March 30, 2012 to April 5, 2017, which is comprised of FCRA
Class Members who received an FCRA form within the 2-year statutory
period of FCRA and FCRA Class Members who received an FCRA form
within the 5-year statutory period of FCRA but outside of the
2-year statutory period of FCRA.
No Class Members filed written objections to the proposed
Settlement as part of the notice process. Five Class Members
requested exclusion: Cameron Kincaid, David Glazer, Harrison
Samitas, Julia Sluder, and Scott Madrid.
For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, Judge
Nunley finds and determines that the terms of the Settlement are
fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and to each Class
Member. The Participating Class Members will be bound by the
Settlement, the Settlement and implementation schedule are deemed
finally approved, and all terms and provisions of the Settlement
are ordered to be consummated.
The all-inclusive Gross Settlement Amount in the maximum amount of
$1,375,000 and the Settlement Shares to be paid to the
Participating Class Members as provided for by the Settlement are
fair and reasonable. The Judge granted final approval of and
ordered the payment of those amounts be distributed to the
Participating Class Members out of the Net Settlement Amount in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator is directed
to make the payments to each Participating Class Member in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Further, the Judge
approved the proposed means of disbursing any unclaimed funds as
provided in the Settlement Agreement.
The fees and expenses of CPT Group, Inc. in administrating the
Settlement in the amount of $28,000 are fair and reasonable. The
Judge granted final approval of and ordered the payment of that
amount be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Nunley granted final approval of the settlement and release
of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claims by the
California Class, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and the
PAGA Payment of $10,000 from the Gross Settlement Fund to resolve
the PAGA claims. He also granted final approval of and ordered the
payment of the amounts of $10,000 to each Plaintiff for the Class
Representative Service Payments, $343,750 for attorneys' fees to
the Class Counsel, and $15,000 for reimbursement of costs to the
Class Counsel, to be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
Upon entry of final judgment, the Defendant and the Released
Parties will be entitled to a release of all claims alleged or that
could have been alleged based on the facts in the operative
Complaint which occurred during the Class Periods.
For the California Class Participating Class Members, the release
includes all claims arising under California law based on Business
& Profession Code Section 17200, Unpaid Wages, Failure to Provide
Meal Periods, Unpaid Overtime, Unreimbursed Business Expenses,
Inaccurate Wage Statements, and Waiting Time Penalties, as well as
claims under California Labor Code Sections 201-204, 226, 226.3,
226.7, 510, 512, 558, 558.1, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and
2802. It also includes any claims arising under Labor Code
Sections 2699 et seq. and any applicable Wage Order of the
Industrial Welfare Commission, and is inclusive of all forms of
penalties, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Except
those claims that are subject to res judicata, based on the facts
in the operative Complaint, the Release expressly excludes all
other claims, including claims for wrongful termination,
unemployment insurance, disability, social security, and workers'
compensation, as well as claims outside of any applicable Class
Period.
For the FCRA Participating Class Members, the release includes all
claims arising under the FCRA and any statute or regulation of any
state, U.S. territory, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico
that has the purpose or effect of regulating the collection or
reporting of consumer information and related actions.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs
make the additional following general release of any and all
claims, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, that each
Plaintiff had, now has, or may hereafter claim to have against
Defendant and Released Parties. They fully and finally release the
Released Parties, including the Defendant, from any and all claims,
complaints, liens, demands, rights, liabilities, debts,
obligations, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees,
penalties, interest, damages (including but not limited to actual
damages, statutory damages, or punitive damages), restitution,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, remedies, and causes of
action of every type, nature, and description whatsoever, known or
unknown, suspected or unsuspected, asserted or that might have been
asserted, which each Plaintiff had, now has, or may hereafter claim
to have against the Defendant or any of the Released Parties for
claims that occurred during the Class Periods.
The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
Final Judgment is entered based on the Parties' Settlement
Agreement. All claims asserted in this Action are dismissed with
prejudice as to Plaintiffs Jonathan Bailey and Jose Carrasco, Jr.,
the California Class Members and the FCRA Class Members. The PAGA
claims asserted in the Action are dismissed with prejudice as to
the Plaintiffs and all the California Class Members. All the
California Class Members and the FCRA Class Members who did not
properly and timely opt-out from the Class Settlement are
permanently enjoined from pursuing or seeking to reopen any of the
released claims as set forth in the Order.
Each side will bear her/his/its own costs and attorneys' fees
except as provided by the Settlement Agreement and the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5787ypvv from Leagle.com.
RPS HOLDINGS: De Sa Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Dancers Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
RONIQUE DE SA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. RPS HOLDINGS, LLC dba CAPITAL CABARET, a North
Carolina Limited Liability Company; PRS PARTNERS, LLC, a North
Carolina Limited Liability Company; PHONG NGUYEN, an individual;
PEGGY ANN ROHM, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00155-D (E.D.N.C., April 1,
2021) alleges that the Defendants evade mandatory minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally
absconding with Plaintiff's tips and demanding illegal kickbacks
including in the form of "House Fees."
These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while
the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the preceeding
three year period to the filing of this Complaint. During her being
employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to
classify Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors," the suit says.
RPS Holdings operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, provides communication products such as video
conferencing equipment and network configuration, as well as offers
project management, installation, end user training, and on site
support services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall J. Phillips, Esq.
CHARLES G. MONNTETT III & ASSOCIATES
6842 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28211
Telephone: (704) 376-1911
Facsimile: (704) 376-1921
E-mail: rphillips@carolinalaw.com
- and -
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
SAKS & COMPANY: Alexander Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAQUILLE STEWART ALEXANDER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. SAKS & COMPANY LLC; SAKS INCORPORATED, Case
No. 3:21-cv-02384 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2021) seeks to recover
unpaid wages, overtime compensation, penalties, interest,
injunctive relief, damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the California Unfair Competition Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants implemented an illegal
policy requiring its non-exempt workers to wait in line and undergo
two off-the-clock security bag searches and clearance checks when
they clock in before the shift and after they have clocked out at
the end of their shifts. These security bag searches are done for
the sole benefit of Defendants. This waiting time constitutes
compensable time that was worked by the Plaintiff and Class
Members. The Plaintiff and other sales associates to report to work
at 8am every workday (one hour before clock in), to attend meetings
to show new product and top sales of the previous day. The
Defendants implemented a policy that the sales associates were
prohibited from clocking in until a designated time not even a
minute before. By failing to pay for this time worked, Defendants
have violated California law because Defendants failed to pay for
all hours worked by its employees, failed to pay overtime wages,
and failed to provide itemized wage statements as required by the
California Labor Code and California Industrial Wage Commission
Wage Orders, the suit says.
Saks & Company operates chain of retail department stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Feder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
235 Montgomery Street Suite 1019
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 391-9476
Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
E-mail: daniel@dfederlaw.com
SHC SERVICES: Dunn Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEIRDRE DUNN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SHC SERVICES, INC., Case No.
21CECG00896, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on May 6, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00744-NONE-SAB 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 for all hours worked, failure to pay
minimum wage, failure to pay, failure to authorize and/or permit
meal breaks, failure to authorize and/or permit rest breaks,
failure to reimburse business related expenses, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay all wages due upon
from separation from employment, and unfair business practices.
SHC Services, Inc. is a healthcare staffing solutions provider,
with its principal place of business at 1640 W. Redstone Center
Drive, Suite 200, Park City, Utah. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael P. Roche, Esq.
Benjamin M. Ostrander, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-5600
Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
E-mail: mroche@winston.com
bostrander@winston.com
- and –
Tristan R. Kirk, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
E-mail: tkirk@winston.com
SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Gonpo FLSA Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sonam's Stonewalls & Art, LLC, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Gonpo v.
Sonam's Stonewalls & Art, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-40138-MGM,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Springfield.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Jampa Gonpo filed a six-count wage and hour complaint against his
former employer, Sonam's Stonewalls & Art, LLC, and Sonam Rinchem
Lama, Stonewall's owner-operator, in September 2016. The claims are
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Internal Revenue
Code, and state statutory and common law, all stemming from alleged
failure to pay mandatory minimum and overtime wages and failure to
maintain proper bookkeeping and reporting practices relating to
payroll.
The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order,
and its Judgment dated April 1, 2021, granting-in-part Plaintiff's
motion for determination of damages, fees, and costs.
The appellate case is captioned as Gonpo v. Sonam's Stonewalls &
Art, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-1352, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.
The appellate case's Docketing Statement, Appearance form, and
Transcript Report/Order form is due on May 18, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants SONAM'S STONEWALLS & ART, LLC, d/b/a Sonam's
Stonewalls and Art and SONAM RINCHEN LAMA are represented by:
Erin Elizabeth McHugh, Esq.
SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW LLP
268 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 391-9001
- and -
Thomas T. Merrigan, Esq.
SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP
393 Main Street
Greenfield, MA 01301
Telephone: (413) 774-5300
E-mail: merrigan@valinet.com
Plaintiff-Appellee JAMPA GONPO, On behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Rebecca G. Pontikes, Esq.
PONTIKES LAW LLC
110 Tremont St., 2nd Fl.
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 357-1888
E-mail: rpontikes@pontikeslawllc.com
- and -
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd., Ste 119
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com
Interested Parties NFN TOBDEN, JAMYANG GYATSO PHULOTSANG, and TULKU
DECHEN are represented by:
Rebecca G. Pontikes, Esq.
PONTIKES LAW LLC
110 Tremont St., 2nd Fl.
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 357-1888
E-mail: rpontikes@pontikeslawllc.com
- and -
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd. Ste 119
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com
SONY INTERACTIVE: Restricts Video Games Market, Caccuri Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN CACCURI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-03361 (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Section 2 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and the California Business and
Professions Code.
The case arises from the Defendant's action to eliminate retailers'
ability to sell download codes for digital PlayStation games on
April 1, 2019. The restriction established the PlayStation Store,
Sony's online store for purchasing and downloading digital video
games, as the only source from which consumers can purchase digital
PlayStation games, and the only source to which video game
publishers can sell digital PlayStation games. As a result of
Sony's alleged unlawful acquisition and maintenance of a monopoly
over the sale of digital PlayStation games, the Plaintiff and Class
members have paid and will continue to pay significantly more for
digital games than they would have absent Sony's monopoly.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC is a multinational video game
and digital entertainment company, with its headquarters and
principal place of business at 2207 Bridgepointe Parkway, San
Mateo, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
WESTERMAN LAW CORP.
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 685
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (310) 698-7450
E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com
- and –
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
Jacob O. Onile-Ere, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0050
E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
mclerkin@motleyrice.com
jonileere@motleyrice.com
- and –
Adrian N. D. Campos, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ADRIAN CAMPOS
40 Bayscape Cardiff Marina
Watkiss Way, Cardiff, CF11 0TA
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 7305 568951
E-mail: mrcampos15@gmail.com
- and –
Barrett Beasley, Esq.
Robert L. Salim, Esq.
SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
1901 Texas Street
Natchitoches, LA 71457
Telephone: (318) 354-1043
Facsimile: (318) 354-1227
E-mail: robertsalim@cp-tel.net
- and –
John Alden Meade, Esq.
MEADE YOUNG LLC
909 Poydras St., Suite 1600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 799-3102
E-mail: jam@meadeyoung.com
SPRINT CORPORATION: Flex Lease Program "Deceptive," Gutierrez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA GUTIERREZ and MICHAEL CAMOU, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPRINT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-03865 (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for common law fraud,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California's
Unfair Competition Law and the California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misled consumers,
including the Plaintiffs, into participating its Flex Lease
Agreement program. The Sprint Flex Lease program purports to
provide customers options in order to obtain mobile phone devices
at a supposedly low monthly cost, through monthly installment
payments and the ability to cancel the contracts after a set time
period. In reality, however, consumers pay significantly more than
the value of their devices due to Sprint's ongoing monthly charges
after the lease terms end, or are required to make additional
payments at the end of the initial lease term for customers who
want to own their devices, or are unable to cancel the program
after the termination of the lease period despite attempting to do
so. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unconscionable Flex
Lease program, the Plaintiffs and Class members have been harmed
and suffered damages, including, but not limited to overpayments
for device leases, excessive purchase prices for devices,
termination fees, and inconvenience.
Sprint Corporation is an American telecommunications company
headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Lori G. Kier, Esq.
Davina C. Okonkwo, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (888) 711-9975
Facsimile: (610) 727-4360
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
lgk@sstriallawyers.com
dco@sstriallawyers.com
- and –
Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
Facsimile: (805) 284-9590
E-mail: alison@nshmlaw.com
SPROUT FOODS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Heavy Metals, Key Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA KEY, NAHSLA BLACK-ZETINA, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SPROUT FOODS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-02391 (N.D. Calif., April 1, 2021) is a class action
alleging that Sprout' Baby Food for infants and toddlers has toxic
heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury --
substances known to have significant and dangerous health
consequences.
The Defendant formulates, develops, manufactures, labels,
distributes, markets, advertises, and sells baby foods under the
name "Sprout Organic" throughout the State of California, as well
as the United States more broadly.
The Plaintiffs are reasonable consumers who purchased Defendant's
baby foods reasonably believing that such baby foods are safe,
nutritious, and free from harmful toxins, contaminants, and
chemicals.
As a result of Defendant's alleged negligent, reckless, and/or
intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully
disclose the presence of dangerous substances in its baby foods,
Plaintiffs and the Class Members were induced to purchase the
Defendant's baby foods, which are not healthy for consumption by
babies as advertised. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members were
induced to feed their babies dangerous foods containing toxic heavy
metals, such a lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, and the full
extent of the harm caused to their babies is not yet known.
Consumers of baby foods, including Plaintiffs, place their trust in
manufacturers like Defendant, believing they sell baby foods that
are safe, nutritious, and free from harmful toxins, contaminants,
and chemicals, the suit adds.
Reasonable consumers lack the scientific knowledge necessary to
determine whether the Defendant's products contain alleged toxic
heavy metals or to ascertain the true nature of the ingredients and
quality of the products Defendant sells. Reasonable consumers
therefore must -- and do -- rely on Defendant to honestly report
what its various products contain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
STATE FARM: Royal Palm Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal to 11th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Royal Palm Optical, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROYAL PALM OPTICAL, INC., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 9:20-cv-80749-AMC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 28, 2020, the
lawsuit alleges that the Defendants denied claims for lost business
income and extra expenses as a result of social distancing and/or
stay-at-home orders issued in connection with the COVID-19 global
pandemic.
The Plaintiff purchased State Farm-branded "all risk" commercial
property insurance policies that included Loss of Income and Extra
Expense Coverage. The Plaintiff contends that it fully performed
its obligations under the Policy and paid over $3,000 to the
Defendants in annual premium payments. Plaintiff asserts that the
Policy, which remains in force as of today, promised them the
reimbursement of lost income and other expenses in the event that
its business was suspended.
As a result of the Defendants' breach of the Policy, the Plaintiff
and Class members have sustained substantial damages for which
Defendants are liable, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated March
29, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case for
failure to state a claim.
The appellate case is captioned as Royal Palm Optical, Inc. v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile, et al., Case No. 21-11335, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on
April 22, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on May
6, 2021 as to Appellant Royal Palm Optical, Inc.; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before May 20, 2021 as to Appellee State Farm Florida Insurance
Company.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROYAL PALM OPTICAL, INC., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Zachary Scott Bower, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
5 Becker Farm Rd.
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Jordan Jacobson, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
Joseph Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Rd
Radnor, PA 19087-5108
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jjacobson@ktmc.com
nlesser@ktmc.com
jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
Defendants-Appelleed STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
and STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:
David Matthew Allen, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, PA
4221 W Boy Scout Blvd Ste 1000
PO BOX 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
Telephone: (813) 223-7000
E-mail: mallen@carltonfields.com
- and -
Benjamine Reid, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, PA
700 NW 1st Ave Ste 1200
Miami, FL 33136-4118
Telephone: (305) 530-0050
E-mail: breid@carltonfields.com
SYNGENTA AG: Holliday Sues Over Side Effects of Paraquat's Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG HOLLIDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA AG; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC;
and CHEVRON USA INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00137-RGE-HCA
(S.D. Iowa, May 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for strict products liability and negligence.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately
warn the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers that
their use of and exposure to Paraquat, a synthetic chemical
compound developed and sold by the Defendants, significantly
increased their risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. Nor did the
Defendants (a) adequately test Paraquat to, among other things,
determine the nature and extent of exposure under all relevant
conditions, including when mixed in particular formulations, or (b)
formulate or label Paraquat so to render such exposure unlikely.
Instead, the Defendants sold Paraquat with complete disregard and
reckless indifference to the safety of the Plaintiff and Class
members, the suit alleges.
Syngenta AG is a global provider of agricultural science and
technology, with its principal place of business in Basel,
Switzerland.
Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Syngenta AG, with its principal place of business in Greensboro,
North Carolina.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a provider of energy services with its
principal place of business in San Ramon, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.,
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
- and –
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.,
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
E-mail: marty@sagwlaw.com
- and –
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and –
Jessica H. Meeder, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 921-6007
E-mail: jessica@feganscott.com
T&M RESTAURANT: Jimenez Seeks Website Access for Blind Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
FLOR JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T&M RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a SONS
& DAUGHTERS; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-at-00508 (E.D. Cal., May 3, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
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,
https://www.sonsanddaughterssf.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 (alt-text), (2) empty links, (3)
redundant links, and (4) linked images missing alt-text, the suit
says.
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.
T&M Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Sons &
Daughters, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its
headquarters in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Ryan's Breach & Unjust Enrichment Claims Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants the Defendant's motion seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in the lawsuit
titled BROOKE RYAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-02164-JMG (E.D. Pa.).
The college experience is unlike any other. Unfortunately, as with
essentially every other aspect of the people's lives over the past
year, the college experience has not been immune from the
depredation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency quarantine measures
and the attendant specter of serious health consequences have
forced institutions of higher learning to seek alternative
accommodations to ensure continuity during these uncertain times.
The decision by many schools to transition classes online has
understandably frustrated the hopes of countless students. However,
subjective expectations and extenuating circumstances do not
abrogate the fundamental tenets of contract law.
Plaintiffs Brooke Ryan and Christina Fusca brought suit in the
instant matter against Temple University as a result of its
decision to move classes to an online forum in the Spring semester
of 2020. According to the Plaintiffs, this constituted a breach of
Temple's implied contractual duty to provide in-person instruction
and allow students access to campus facilities. Likewise, the
Plaintiffs allege that the University unjustly enriched itself by
way of reduced maintenance and staffing costs resulting from the
closure of campus. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of the difference
in value between the online learning provided and the in-person
instruction for which they allegedly contracted, as well as a
refund of the fees they paid for access to University facilities
and services.
The present Motion by Temple University seeks dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' implied contract theory
is precluded by the existence of an express contract governing the
payment of tuition and fees. Since this express contract provides
no promise of in-person instruction and access to campus under any
circumstances, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs cannot
plausibly allege that the Defendant violated a contractual duty,
thereby, defeating their claims for breach of contract. Similarly,
the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims
must fail due to the existence of an express agreement between the
Parties.
Breach of Contract (Counts I & III)
The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they, along with
other members of the Tuition Class, entered into individual
contracts with the Defendant which provided that they would pay
tuition in exchange for course enrollment, access to campus
facilities, and in-person instruction in a physical classroom. The
Plaintiffs reason that they are entitled to a refund of those fees
since they were deprived of the value of the benefits and services
those fees were intended to cover.
The Defendant counters that the express contractual terms to which
the Plaintiffs agreed prior to enrollment for the Spring 2020
semester defeat their breach of implied contract claims in Counts I
and III. According to the Defendant, these terms were set forth in
the Student Financial Responsibility Agreement that all students
must sign prior to enrollment, as well as the Tuition and Fees
Policy in the University's Student Bulletin.
District Judge John M. Gallagher holds that the Plaintiffs'
allegations do not state a plausible claim for breach of an express
or implied contract by the Defendant. He explains that the Student
Financial Responsibility Agreement is a fully integrated, binding
contract, which sets forth the material terms and conditions
concerning the payment of tuition and all applicable fees prior to
class registration. As contemplated in the Agreement, the
Plaintiffs paid all required tuition and fees and, in exchange, the
Defendant allowed them to register for classes and provided
uninterrupted coursework for the entire Spring semester. The
Agreement contained no specific and identifiable promise of
exclusively in-person instruction or unqualified access to campus
facilities.
Additionally, Judge Gallagher holds, the Plaintiffs' implied
contract theory is precluded by the existence of this express
contract governing the payment of tuition and fees. The Complaint,
therefore, does not plausibly allege that the Defendant breached an
implied or express contractual duty to provide in-person classes
under any and all circumstances. Hence, Counts I and III of the
Complaint must be dismissed.
Unjust Enrichment (Counts II & IV)
In addition to their breach of contract claims, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendant has unjustly enriched itself by moving
classes online, thereby, saving significant sums of money by way of
reduced maintenance and staffing costs. The Plaintiffs assert that,
although they paid substantial sums of tuition for live, in-person
classes and access to campus, they did not receive the benefit of
their bargain. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant failed to
provide the services for which tuition was charged, and denied
students access to the programs for which fees were collected. As a
result, the Plaintiffs reason that the Defendant's retention of
tuition and fees would be unjust under the circumstances.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' claims are legally
deficient because the Parties' contractual relationship precludes
the assertion of unjust enrichment. According to the Defendant,
both Parties agree that their relationship is governed by a
contract, even though they disagree about its form and terms. The
Defendant emphasizes that the Plaintiffs acknowledge as much,
incorporating by reference the facts supporting their preceding
breach of contract allegations into their claims for unjust
enrichment. Regardless, the Defendant maintains that the Student
Financial Responsibility Agreement is a binding agreement that sets
forth the rights and obligations of each Party. The Defendant,
thus, asserts that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims must be
dismissed.
The Plaintiffs assert that, since they dispute the validity and
applicability of the Student Financial Responsibility Agreement,
they may plead unjust enrichment as an alternative cause of action
to their breach of contract claim. The Court disagrees. The
doctrine of unjust enrichment is predicated on the absence of a
direct relationship between the parties, citing Promark Realty
Group, Inc. v. B & W Associates, No. 02-1089, 2002 WL 862566, at *4
(E.D. Pa. May 1, 2002).
The Court has determined that the Student Financial Responsibility
Agreement is a fully integrated contract which governs the Parties'
relationship with respect to payment of tuition and fees. This
Agreement affords each Party a contractual right to recovery in the
event of a breach which precludes a claim for unjust enrichment.
Judge Gallagher opines that the Parties maintained a direct
relationship throughout the Spring 2020 semester in the form of the
Student Financial Responsibility Agreement. This express contract
sets forth the terms and conditions for payment of tuition and fees
prior to class registration. The Agreement not only precludes the
Plaintiffs from advancing their claims for breach of implied
contact, but for unjust enrichment as well. As a result, Counts II
and IV of the Complaint must be dismissed.
Conclusion
The Plaintiffs' allegations do not state a plausible claim for
breach of an express or implied contract, Judge Gallagher holds.
The Student Financial Responsibility Agreement is a fully
integrated, binding contract, which governs the payment of tuition
and all applicable fees prior to class registration. Absent from
the Agreement's terms is any promise by the Defendant to provide
exclusively in-person classroom instruction or unqualified access
to campus. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' implied contract theory is
precluded by the existence of this express Agreement between the
Parties.
The Complaint, therefore, fails to allege that the Defendant
breached an implied or express contractual duty to provide
in-person classes under any and all circumstances. The existence of
an express contract also bars the Plaintiffs from advancing their
claims of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is dismissed
with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6fua2zb from
Leagle.com.
TEN SOUTH: Beamon Sues Over Maintenance Technicians' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BEAMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEN SOUTH MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02382 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
maintenance technicians overtime pay for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance technician from October
of 2011 until April of 2021.
Ten South Management Company, LLC is a property management firm
based in Highland Park, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
TRI-CITY GLASS: Underpays Non-exempt Employees, Wallace Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY WALLACE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRI-CITY GLASS & DOOR, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00490 (E.D. Wis., April 19, 2021) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful compensation system in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in approximately September
2015 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of
Residential Sales and Scheduling working at the Defendant's
Appleton, Wisconsin location. His employment ended in approximately
February 2021.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not compensate the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid and non-exempt
employees for the time they spent performing compensable work
immediately prior to "clocking in" and "clocking out". In addition,
the Defendant failed to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments, in their regular rates of pay for the
purpose of determining their overtime compensation. Moreover, the
Defendant has a practice of shaving time from the Plaintiff's and
all other similarly situated employees' timesheets each work day
and each workweek by manipulating its electronic timekeeping system
in the following manner: forward in intervals of 15 minutes prior
to employees scheduled shift start times, and backwards in
intervals of 15 minutes after said employees' scheduled shift end
times, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful practices and
policies, although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, they
were not properly paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Tri-City Glass & Door, Inc. specializes in commercial glass
projects and automotive glass repair. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
TRIBAL NUTRITION: Faces Ervay Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS ERVAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIBAL NUTRITION LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-008757 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., April 30, 2021) brings
this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him automated text
messages on his cellular telephone number ending in 5826 on or
about November 26, 2020 and November 30, 2020. The Defendant's
purpose of transmitting automated text messages was to advertise
its property, goods, or services and to encourage the Plaintiff to
purchase its property, goods, or services. However, the Defendant
failed to obtain the Plaintiff's express consent to received such
text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS).
Allegedly, the impersonal and generic nature of the Defendant's
text messages demonstrates that the Defendant utilized an ATDS in
transmitting the text messages.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited automated
text messages have caused actual harm to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated consumers in the form invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion. It also inconvenienced the Plaintiff and caused
disruption to his daily life.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease
all unsolicited text messaging activity, as well as actual and
statutory damages, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
Tribal Nutrition LLC sells ready to go meals online. [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 –
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
TWIN LIQUORS: Fails to Properly Pay CSRs' OT Wages, Santos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NOELIA SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWIN LIQUORS, LP, and TWIN LIQUORS
GP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00432 (W.D. Tex., April 30,
2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
Customer Service Representative (CSR) from July 2020 until January
2021.
The Plaintiff asserts that although she and other similarly
situated CSRs regularly worked over 40 hours per week, they were
not properly paid 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 workweek because the Defendant did not include
the bonuses or commissions that were paid to them in their regular
rates when calculating their overtime pay.
On behalf of herself and other similarly situated CSRs, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking a
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime
compensation.
Twin Liquors, LP and Twin Liquors GP, LLC provides the consumer
with fine wine and spirit, and were merged and managed in a unified
manner. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
UNITED STATES: 1st Cir. Affirms Judgment in Pagan-Lisboa v. SSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms a
judgment, with a single exception, in the lawsuit entitled MARIE V.
PAGAN-LISBOA; DANIEL JUSTINIANO-RAMIREZ, Plaintiffs, Appellants v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration, Defendants, Appellees, Case No.
20-1377 (1st Cir.).
The case is fallout from what the Social Security Administration
did to Marie Pagan-Lisboa and Daniel Justiniano-Ramirez after Jose
Hernandez-Gonzalez (a neurologist) and Samuel Torres-Crespo (a
non-attorney representative) copped to using fraud to help people
get disability-insurance benefits from that agency.
A federal statute says that the agency must "immediately
redetermine" whether a person actually deserved benefits when she
or he applied for them "if there is reason to believe that fraud or
similar fault was involved" in the application. Another part of the
statute says that during the redetermination process, the agency
must "disregard any evidence" in the benefits application "if there
is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in
the providing of such evidence." See id. Section 405(u)(1)(B).
A team of agency special adjudicators reviewed benefits cases
containing evidence from Hernandez-Gonzalez and Torres-Crespo,
thinking--as relevant in tha case, though incorrectly--that the
inspector general had made a fraud referral. And that put
Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez in the agency's cross-hairs.
Ms. Pagan-Lisboa is a former patient of Hernandez-Gonzalez and a
former client of Torres-Crespo. With their help, she applied for
and started getting disability benefits (or so the agency writes,
without contradiction). Relying on Section 405(u), the agency later
notified her that it needed to redetermine her benefits eligibility
because her case contained evidence from admitted fraudsters,
Hernandez-Gonzalez and Torres-Crespo. The agency added that while
she could argue to an administrative law judge ("ALJ") that she was
entitled to benefits at the time of [her] original award, she could
not argue that the agency should consider evidence from persons who
admitted they were guilty of making a false statement to the
agency. Together with her lawyer, Pagan-Lisboa participated in a
hearing at which she testified. Ultimately, though, after
disregarding evidence from Hernandez-Gonzalez and Torres-Crespo,
the ALJ concluded that Pagan-Lisboa did not have enough evidence to
support her initial benefits claim and so terminated her benefits.
And the agency's appeals council affirmed.
Mr. Hernandez-Gonzalez also submitted evidence in support of
Justiniano-Ramirez's successful disability-benefits application (or
so the agency says, again without contradiction). Unlike what it
had done with Pagan-Lisboa, however, the agency suspended
Justiniano-Ramirez's benefits following the special adjudicators'
review of the old applications when Hernandez-Gonzalez's and
Torres-Crespo's fraud came to light. Of note, the agency told him
about the criminal investigation into the fraud scheme, stated that
at least one discredited source provided evidence in his case, and
explained that the benefits suspension would run through the
redetermination process.
A few weeks later, the agency notified Hernandez-Gonzalez that it
had concluded, first, that because he had provided incorrect,
incomplete, or fraudulent evidence, fraud or similar fault was
involved in his application; and, second, that he was not entitled
to benefits after disregarding the part of the application
containing the fraud. He requested and received an ALJ hearing at
which his lawyer--who also represented Pagan-Lisboa--was present.
But after ignoring evidence from Hernandez-Gonzalez, the ALJ ended
up cancelling Justiniano-Ramirez's benefits, who then asked the
appeals council to review the ALJ's decision.
With his case pending before the appeals council,
Justiniano-Ramirez teamed up with Pagan-Lisboa and sued the agency
for themselves and for a purported class of others similarly
situated. Running 73 pages and comprising 339 numbered paragraphs,
the complaint alleged a variety of claims, including asking the
judge to judicially waive the administrative-exhaustion requirement
for Justiniano-Ramirez and all others similarly situated.
Citing federal civil-procedure Rule 12(b)(6) and (b)(1), the agency
then moved to dismiss the federal suit in part, arguing--so far as
pertinent here--along these lines. The Plaintiffs' allegations
about the redetermination process, the agency said, did not state a
claim for relief because the system satisfied all legal
requirements, including due process. Moving on, the agency asserted
that Justiniano-Ramirez had not challenged a "final" agency action.
While acknowledging that he had since exhausted his administrative
remedies, the agency stressed that he had not amended his complaint
to reflect that development. And the agency insisted that his claim
for waiver of the exhaustion requirement was now moot. So according
to the agency, the only claim left in the case concerned whether
the ALJ rightly found that Pagan-Lisboa's initial benefits
application lacked sufficient evidence.
Opposing the agency's motion, Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez
characterized the central issue driving the suit as whether the
agency can terminate disability benefits in proceedings that
deprived them of their due-process rights by not letting them
contest the existence of fraud in their cases.
Days later, Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez also moved to
supplement the complaint to allege that Justiniano-Ramirez had
exhausted his administrative remedies and to add a request for a
finding of disability for him. For support, they cited federal
civil-procedure rules 15(a)(1) (discussing amendments as of right)
and 15(d) (discussing supplementary pleadings).
Acting on the agency's motion to dismiss, the judge--ruling in an
electronic order--agreed with the agency that the Plaintiffs'
challenges to the redetermination process fail to state a claim for
relief and that the only claim pending before the court is
Pagan-Lisboa's claim for review of the agency's final decision
regarding her benefits entitlement.
The judge never ruled on the Plaintiffs' motion to "supplement" the
complaint, however.
Of crucial importance to this appeal, the agency--in a major
about-face--concluded after the dismissal that Pagan-Lisboa did
have a right to show at a new redetermination proceeding that her
benefits application had no fraud and that the targeted evidence
was worth considering (the agency apparently still believed in the
dismissal of Justiniano-Ramirez's case on failure-to-exhaust
grounds). According to the agency, it itself determined that reason
existed to believe that fraud was involved in the prior
proceedings.
Circuit Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, writing for the Panel,
notes that this matters because the agency's manual says that in
cases where the agency--rather than the inspector general or a
prosecutor--discovers evidence that may have been touched by fraud,
the beneficiaries can object to the disregarding of certain
evidence; and if the ALJ is satisfied that the evidence is not
fraudulent, he or she will consider the evidence. And having told
the judge that it declined to continue with the defense of
Pagan-Lisboa's case, the agency requested a remand for further
administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section
405(g). That provision empowers a district judge to return a case
to the agency by entering a judgment affirming, modifying, or
reversing an agency decision with or without remanding the cause
for a rehearing.
Before the Plaintiffs could respond to the agency's motion, the
judge granted the request and entered final judgment remanding
Pagan-Lisboa's case to the agency, ordering the agency to reinstate
her benefits back to the date the agency terminated them (while the
agency worked on a new decision), and dismissing all other claims.
The appeal follows.
Resolving their Appeal, Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez think
the judgment should be reversed in its entirety. They make four
broad arguments. The first is that the judge wrongly dismissed
their policy challenges to the redetermination procedure. The
second is that the judge entered a defective sentence-four remand
and wrongly prevented Pagan-Lisboa from opposing the agency's
remand request. The third is that the judge wrongly dismissed
Justiniano-Ramirez's claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds. And the
fourth is that the judge should have waived the exhaustion
requirement for the class action members.
What looks like a complicated appeal is actually pretty
straightforward--as the Appellate Court explains, using an analysis
similar to that in the agency's appellate brief, Judge Thompson
states.
Redetermination Procedure
The Plaintiffs-Appellants' lead brief spends the most time
refighting the failure-to-state-a-claim battle, which again chiefly
centered on whether they should get a chance to counter the
inspector general's (or prosecutor's) fraud assertions. And this
representative sample of their many statements--offered to get the
Appellate Court to reverse the judge's failure-to-state-a-claim
ruling--makes the Appellate Court's point: Pagan-Lisboa and
Justiniano-Ramirez's lead brief says that the termination policy
implemented violates their due process rights by depriving them of
the ability to contest the existence of fraud in their cases. They
took that language nearly word-for-word from their
motion-to-dismiss opposition. There they contended that the
termination policy implemented violates their due process rights by
depriving them of the ability to contest the existence of fraud in
their cases.
By focusing their appellate attack on an agency policy that they
say wrongly makes the inspector general's (or a prosecutor's) fraud
accusation gospel, Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez mistake the
reality of their situation, Judge Thompson finds. And that is
because they ignore the agency's post-motion-to-dismiss concession
that the agency--not the inspector general (or a
prosecutor)--discovered the fraud, meaning that per agency policy,
they must (and will, the agency says) get a chance to persuade an
ALJ that there is no reason to believe that the complained-of
evidence is fraudulent.
Judge Thompson points out that she and other judges work in an
adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one, citing United States
v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S.Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020). She notes that that
means they rely big-time on litigants for evidence, research, and
argument.
Because Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez have not properly put
the at-issue process in dispute, their challenge to the
redetermination process is a nonstarter, Judge Thompson holds.
Taking a belt-and-suspenders approach, she notes that to the extent
Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez believe their lead brief does
challenge the now-at-issue process, the Appellate Court would find
that challenge too skeletal or confusingly constructed and, thus,
waived. And to the extent they think they fixed this problem in
their reply brief or at oral argument, the Appellate Court would
consider that to be too late and, thus, waived as well.
Sentence-Four Remand
Next up is Pagan-Lisboa's protest about the judge's sentence-four
remand. As a reminder, sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g)
authorizes a district judge to enter a judgment affirming,
modifying, or reversing an agency's decision with or without
remanding the cause for a rehearing. In Pagan-Lisboa's telling, the
judge stumbled because he used sentence four without specifying
that he was affirming, modifying, or reversing the agency's
decision to cancel her benefits. But applying fresh-eyed review,
the Appellate Court sees no basis to reverse on this issue, Judge
Thompson holds.
Judge Thompson states that what triggered the agency's remand
request: realizing it had used the wrong process, the agency found
it could no longer continue with the defense of Pagan-Lisboa's case
and so conceded the need for new agency proceedings where she will
now get to explain why the ALJ can consider evidence labeled
possibly fraudulent. And by granting the agency's request, the
judge recognized that the disputed redetermination decision could
not stand--there must be a redo. At least that is implicit in the
judge's judgment--also making the Appellate Court comfortable with
this at-least-that-is-implicit conclusion is that the judge ordered
the agency to put Pagan-Lisboa in the position she was in
benefits-wise before the agency's redetermination decision. For the
future, however, the Appellate Court asks judges using their
sentence-four powers to please say explicitly whether they are
affirming, modifying, or reversing an agency's decision.
Ms. Pagan-Lisboa makes no effective counterargument either, Judge
Thompson finds. Pagan-Lisboa theorizes that because she and
Justiniano-Ramirez raise many legal challenges, the remand back to
the agency without first adjudicating all these issues subjects
them to piecemeal litigation and, thus, makes the sentence-four
remand improper. Without passing on the correctness of what she
says, the Appellate Court simply says that because she did not
press this theory in the opening brief but presented it only in the
reply brief, the Appellate Court considers it waived. And the same
goes for other appellate arguments not raised until the reply
brief--by way of example (and without limitation): the claim that
the court could also reverse without a remand the agency's finding
that the evidence shows reason to believe that fraud was involved
in her and Justiniano-Ramirez's cases.
As a last-ditch effort, Pagan-Lisboa mentions a district court rule
that pertinently provides that unless within 14 days after the
service of a motion the opposing party files a written opposition
to the motion, the opposing party will be deemed to have waived
any objection to the motion. She cites no caselaw to support her
position, however. Even if the Appellate Court were willing to
overlook that defect (and it is not), the only prejudice she
alleges from this supposed local-rule infraction is that she would
have argued that the judge did not comply with sentence four's
requirements. But as noted, the Appellate Court thinks the judge
complied with sentence four's requirements.
Dismissal of Justiniano-Ramirez's Claims on
Failure-to-Exhaust-Grounds
Judge Thompson holds that Justiniano-Ramirez's amended complaint
shows that he had exhausted administrative remedies. As the agency
rightly concedes here, Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez attached
the amended complaint to a motion that pertinently invoked federal
civil-procedure rule 15(a)(1), which lets plaintiffs amend a
complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of the original
complaint, an answer, or a motion to dismiss--and Pagan-Lisboa and
Justiniano-Ramirez timely moved to amend. Because that rule
authorized the amendment, the judge had to accept it--meaning the
judge legally erred in not doing so, as the agency also concedes.
As for what to do about this, the Appellate Court agrees with the
agency that the specific circumstances here require the Appellate
Court to send Justiniano-Ramirez's case back to the district court
just so the judge can accept the amendment and then remand his case
to the agency for new redetermination proceedings permitting him to
challenge the exclusion of evidence submitted by Hernandez-Gonzalez
in his case.
Waiver of Exhaustion Requirement for "Class Action Members"
Judge Thompson notes that there is not much to say about
Pagan-Lisboa and Justiniano-Ramirez's claim that the Appellate
Court should "judicially waive the exhaustion requirement for all
class members that have not yet exhausted administrative review. A
critical premise of their argument is that the suit became a class
action. But they make no persuasive argument that the suit ever
did--the record discloses no order granting or denying
certification, for instance, and they make no convincing claim of a
possible implied certification. So, their argument goes nowhere.
Wrapping Up
For the reasons recorded, the Appellate Court affirms the judgment,
with a single exception: as to Justiniano-Ramirez, the Appellate
Court vacates that part of the judgment against him and remands so
the judge can accept the amended complaint and then enter a new
judgment remanding his case (with Pagan-Lisboa's) for a new
redetermination proceeding consistent with this opinion. All
parties will bear their own costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4zu6h34s from Leagle.com.
Javier Andres Colon Volgamore, for Appellants.
Jaynie Lilley -- jaynie.lilley2@usdoj.gov -- Attorney, Appellate
Staff, United States Department of Justice, with whom Jeffrey
Bossert Clark -- Jeffrey.clark@usdoj.gov -- Acting Assistant
Attorney General, W. Stephen Muldrow -- w.stephen.muldrow@usdoj.gov
-- United States Attorney, and Mark B. Stern --
Mark.Stern@usdoj.gov -- Attorney, Appellate Staff, United States
Department of Justice, were on brief, for Appellees.
VILLAGE OF HIGHLAND: Underpays Firefighters, Jones Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CA'LIEL JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VILLAGE OF HIGHLAND HILLS c/o Mayor Michael
L. Booker, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00914 (N.D. Ohio, May 3,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated firefighters and emergency medical
services (EMS) workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a firefighter/EMS
worker from approximately January 2016 to January 28, 2021.
Village of Highland Hills is an Ohio municipality with its
principal offices located at 3700 Northfield Rd., Highland Hills,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Karp Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SELWYN KARP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS, INC., STEVEN M.
PAUL, G. ANDRE TURENNE, JANE HENDERSON, ALLISON DORVAL, DINAH SAH,
and OMAR KHWAJA, Case No. 2:21-cv-00381, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 3,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-10727-LTS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding Voyager's
VY-HTT01 new drug submission to the Food and Drug Administration in
order to artificially inflate Voyager securities between June 1,
2017 and November 9, 2020.
Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage gene therapy
company, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and –
Shaye Fuchs, Esq.
37 Arrowhead Lane
Lawrence, NY 11559
Telephone: (516) 509-8755
E-mail: sfuchsesq@aol.com
WESTMINSTER MINT: Defrauds Elderly Persons to Buy Bullion Coins
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER MIERZWA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTMINSTER MINT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:21-cv-01157-SRN-DTS (D. Minn., May 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Deceptive
Acts Perpetrated Against Senior Citizens or Disabled Persons Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in fraudulent
selling of bullion coins to elderly persons, including the
Plaintiff. The Defendant induced the Plaintiff and Class members to
purchase graded coins for investment purposes. The Defendant never
told them that the coins' market value of was worth substantially
less than what they were buying. Moreover, the Defendant never
explained to them that their purchases would not result in any
profit if they decided to sell the coins that they thought they
were purchasing to ensure financial security, the suit says.
Westminster Mint, Inc. is a collectible coin company, with its
principal place of business located at 3300 Fernbrook Lane #160,
Plymouth, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
Christopher P. Renz, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
- and –
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
Austin P. Smith, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
E-mail: Bruce@sgc.law
Austin@sgc.law
WIPRO LTD: Ruffing Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Labor Class Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Ruffing filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled DAVID RUFFING, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated v. WIPRO LIMITED, WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES,
WIPRO LLC, AND WIPRO USA LLC, Case No. 2-20-cv-05545, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 30, 2020, the
lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and
the Civil Rights Act of 1866 for denying the Plaintiff timely
payment of overtime wages, for unlawful termination based on race
and age, and for retaliation over FLSA violation complaints.
Mr. Ruffing is a 61-year-old White man who resides in Phoenixville,
Pennsylvania. He was employed by Quest Diagnostics and its
predecessor companies in its data center in West Norriton for
approximately 30 years. His last job title was senior operations
analyst.
Mr. Ruffing now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order
dated March 29, 2021, granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiff's
amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The appellate case is captioned as David Ruffing v. Wipro Ltd.,
Case No. 21-8024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, filed on May 3, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner DAVID RUFFING, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
APOLLO LAW
333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 927-2969
E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
- and -
Colin R. Reeves, Esq.
APOLLO LAW
1314 Pacific Street
Brooklyn, NY 11216
Telephone: (646) 363-6763
E-mail: colin@apollo-law.com
- and -
M. Frances Ryan, Esq.
WUSINICH & SWEENEY, LLC
1235 Wembley Drive
Wayne, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 594-1600
E-mail: mfrancesryan@wusinichsweeney.com
- and -
Edward C. Sweeney, Esq.
WUSINICH & BROGAN
537 West Uwchlan Avenue, Suite 200
Downingtown, PA 19335
Telephone: (610) 594-1600
E-mail: esweeney@wusinichsweeney.com
Defendant-Respondent WIPRO LTD is represented by:
Matthew J. Hank, Esq.
Tanner McCarron, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
1601 Cherry Street
Three Parkway, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 402-3054
E-mail: mhank@littler.com
tmccarron@littler.com
YAMATO TRANSPORT: Misclassifies Movers, Makiyama Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
YOSHIKI MAKIYAMA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YAMATO TRANSPORT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-03719 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2021)
brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a mover from
approximately 1994 to October 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that Defendant improperly classified him and
other similarly situated movers as exempt employees. Despite
regularly working in excess of 40 each week, the Defendant did not
pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for al hours they worked over 40
in a workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated movers, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages from
Defendant, as well as liquidated damages, litigation costs,
attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as may be necessary and appropriate.
Yamato Transport U.S.A., Inc. provides transportation services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Tel: (310) 928-1277
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
*********
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 ***