/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210901.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 169
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Harris Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Lynch Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: O'Neil Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Sheridan Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Weeden Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
8.6.4 DESIGN: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABC METRO: Navarro Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Laundry Service Staff
ABE MALKIN: Nazarian Sues Over Retaliation & Wrongful Discharge
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Proposed Settlement Reached in Inmates' Suit
ALERE NORTH: Castillo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over App Store Management
ASC REGENITY: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASSETCARE LLC: Maman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ATLANTIC COLLECTION: Merriman Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
ATLAS OIL: Wilson Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to W.D. Texas
ATLAS SENIOR: Green Seeks Medical Technicians' Unpaid Wages
AUDIBLE INC: Faces Golden Suit Over Royalty Book Payments
AUTOMATION PERSONNEL: Madkin Suit Removed to S.D. Alabama
AVANT LLC: McDaid Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
BALTIMORE, MD: Protesters Demand "Safe Schools" Days
BANDI LABORATORIES: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Knudson Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to N.D. Ill.
BETH SKINNER: Soto Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
BILL WRIGHT INC: Stampes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BILLIE INC: Arreola Suit Removed to C.D. California
BOTTLING GROUP: Pujanes Labor Code Suit Goes to E.D. California
BP SOLUTIONS: Payne FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada
BUILDERS CONCRETE: Myles FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. California
CAI INTERNATIONAL: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Jones Suit Alleges
CALIFORNIA CLINIC: Underpays Commercial Technicians, Tungcab Claims
CARDINAL LAW: Reinardy Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
CASA LINDA FURNITURE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
CELINA, TN: Hamilton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CENTRAL METRO: Roesner Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION: Dismissal of Lescavage Suit Partly OK'd
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Bullen Files Suit in S.D. California
D'ERRICO'S PLATINUM: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Jackson Slams Collection Calls
DORASTI IMPORTS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Sunscreens Contain Benzene, Algofi Suit Says
ENPHASE ENERGY: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
EVERGREEN ALLIANCE: Saavedra Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
FABRICS WORLD: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FULL TRUCK: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline
GENERAL MOTORS LLC: Faces Hampton Suit Over Defective Engines
GLOBAL CREDIT: Gonzales Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
GOLDMAN SACHS: Averts New York Shareholder Class Action
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Wages, Chaisson et al. Claim
GRANDE COSMETICS: Morgan Files Labeling Suit Over Lash Serum
HERSHEY COMPANY: Lederman Files Hot Fudge Topping Mislabeling Case
HOST INT'L: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Cazares Labor Suit
IMPERIAL PARKING: Underpays Parking Lot Attendants, Jacques Claims
JOSH GUILLORY: Laxey-Fogleman Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
JUUL LABS: Adrian School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Barron Area Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Canton School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Strasburg District Says
JUUL LABS: Chester School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: DeTour School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Las Virgenes Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, North Canton School Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, West Deptford Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces San Dieguito Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Greenville School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Mich.
JUUL LABS: Heritage School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Mich.
JUUL LABS: Higley Unified Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Louisville School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Capac School Alleges
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Ewen-Trout School Claims
JUUL LABS: Mount Horeb Area School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis
JUUL LABS: Osnaburg School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Prescott School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Southwestern Wis. Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Waunakee School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Wis.
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of October 26 Deadline
KEN & DANA: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LEMONADE INC: Faces Class Suit in New York Over Biometrics' Use
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Dismissal of Nitkewicz Suit Under Appeal
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v LLANY Underway
LYFT INC: Fails to Reimburse Expenses & Pay Wages, Chandra Claims
MAPLEBEAR INC: Chambers Seeks Unpaid Wages & Unreimbursed Expenses
MARIANI PACKAGING: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Lodahl Says
MDL 2543: Class Counsel Will Be Given Unredacted Copies of Letter
MEDTRONIC INC: Le FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Fuel Odor Class Lawsuit Heads to Mediation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Smith Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
MISSION BAY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Alvarado Suit Claims
MOD SUPER FAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Alleges
NEC CORP: Price-Fixing Class Action Settlement Notable, Lawyer Says
NEW DICKSON TRADING: Liu Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NORDSTROM INC: Harris Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
PAYPAL HOLDINGS INC: Faces Kang Suit Over Drop in Share Price
POSTAL FLEET: Gaugh FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to M.D. Fla.
SAFE STREETS: Class Settlement in Jones Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
SAPPI NORTH: Saunders Product Liability Suit Removed to D. Maine
SCIPLAY CORP: Class Status Bid in NY Consolidated Suit Pending
SCIPLAY CORP: Good Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
SELECTQUOTE INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 15 Deadline
SIERRA CIRCUITS: Munoz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Consolidated Suit
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ciccio Putative Class Suit Ongoing
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Settlement in Benbow Granted Final Approval
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Monahan Files Suit in W.D. Texas
SPICE CREAMERY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SURRATT COSMETICS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
T-MOBILE USA: Schupler Files Suit in W.D. Washington
TEGNA INC: Consolidated Massey Suit Over Ad Rates Underway
TEXLEY INC: Leone Slams Tip Credit, Seeks Proper Wages
TRUGREEN INC: Loera Employment Suit Goes to E.D. California
TWITTER INC: Huber Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over No-Solicitation Conspiracy
UNITED STATES: Guerrero Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
UPSTEP LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VELODYNE LIDAR: Tentative Pact Reached in CA Employment Class Suit
VERMONT: Deprives Investors of Constitutional Rights, Suit Says
VERSAILLES GARDENS: Fla. Dist. App. Flips Dismissal of Lacayo Suit
VIATRIS INC: Bid for Decertification in EpiPen Suit Pending
VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen Auto-Injector Suit
VIATRIS INC: Dismissal of Ranitidine-Related Suit Under Appeal
VIATRIS INC: EpiPen Auto-Injector Securities Class Suit Underway
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Apodaca Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Underpays District Fleet Managers, Mayer Claims
WSGP GAS PRODUCING: Hoog Suit Moved to W.D. Texas
*********
3M COMPANY: Harris Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02735-RMG (D.S.C., August 24, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
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 military members, 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, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
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.
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.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
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.
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.
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.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
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.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Lynch Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE LYNCH, 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-02755-RMG
(D.S.C., August 26, 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 consumers, 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, says the suit.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
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: O'Neil Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL O'NEIL, 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-02759-RMG
(D.S.C., August 26, 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 severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
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: Sheridan Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SHERIDAN, 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-02758-RMG
(D.S.C., August 26, 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, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer 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: Weeden Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA LYNN WEEDEN, as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Stephen Ray
Weeden, deceased, 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-02774-RMG
(D.S.C., August 26, 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
for personal injury and death resulting from the Decedent's
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 Decedent, 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 Decedent used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition, alleges the
suit.
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
8.6.4 DESIGN: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 8.6.4 Design Ltd. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. 8.6.4 Design Ltd., Case No.
1:21-cv-07207 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
8.6.4 -- https://864design.com/ -- is a collection of jewelry and
accessories, designed and handmade in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ABC METRO: Navarro Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Laundry Service Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABC METRO CLEANERS L.E.S. INC. (D/B/A ABC
CLEANER NYC), SAU YING WANG, and XUE YU LIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07193 (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 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, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping
requirements.
Mr. Navarro was employed as an ironer at the Defendants' laundry
service located at 184 Avenue C, New York, New York from
approximately November 20, 2018 until on or about January 2020.
ABC Metro Cleaners L.E.S. Inc. is an owner and operator of a
laundry service under the name ABC Cleaner NYC, located at 184
Avenue C, New York, 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
ABE MALKIN: Nazarian Sues Over Retaliation & Wrongful Discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANI NAZARIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABE MALKIN MD INC. DBA CONCIERGE MD LA,
ABRAHAM MALKIN, and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV31425 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 25, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including retaliation and wrongful constructive discharge.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a licensed vocational
nurse from November 2020 until June 2021.
Abe Malkin MD Inc., doing business as Concierge MD LA, is an
in-home concierge practice providing on-demand medical services
based in Los Angeles, 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
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Proposed Settlement Reached in Inmates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
independentnews.com reports that attorneys who sued Alameda County
to improve conditions for inmates at the Santa Rita Jail in Dublin
have reached a settlement that could bring mental health, suicide
prevention and other reforms to the troubled institution.
If approved by a U.S. District Court judge, the "consent decree"
would be implemented in the next two years and remain in effect for
six years, attorneys with Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld (RBGG)
said.
The consent decree would require Alameda County officials to
improve the delivery of mental health care, expand out-of-cell time
for inmates, and provide Americans with Disabilities Act
accommodations for inmates with mental health disabilities.
It also has provisions for use-of-force, discharge planning,
coordinating emergency mental health care with John George
Psychiatric Hospital, and suicide prevention.
Jeffrey Bornstein, a partner at RBGG, said the consent decree
resulted from lawyers from Rosen Bien working closely with lawyers
representing the Sheriff and the county.
"The decree requires fundamental and transformative changes at the
jail," Bornstein said in a statement. "The hope is that the
cooperative foundation we have built with the county's lawyers will
bring about the cultural change necessary to end the use of
punitive measures, such as isolation and lack of out of cell time
and to ensure that there are vigorous mental health care,
educational and other treatment program opportunities throughout
the jail." [GN]
ALERE NORTH: Castillo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GEORGE CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALERE NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ALERE,
INC.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2021-00022335-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on August 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01519-BAS-AGS 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 all wages owed, failure to pay
overtime, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
expenses, and unfair competition.
Alere North America, Inc. is a diagnostic solution provider based
in Massachusetts.
Alere, Inc. is a global manufacturer of rapid point-of-care
diagnostic tests, headquartered in Massachusetts.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is an American multinational medical
devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
Steven A. Morphy, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
Telephone: (213) 532-2000
Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
E-mail: mbeilke@HuntonAK.com
jtrankiem@HuntonAK.com
smorphy@HuntonAK.com
APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over App Store Management
---------------------------------------------------------
Ian Sherr, writing for CNET, reports that Apple says it has reached
a settlement with developers in a class action lawsuit against the
tech giant over how it manages its App Store for the iPhone and
iPad. Among the agreements, Apple said it will share more data with
app developers, solidify some rules around communication with
customers and establish a $100 million fund to help US developers
who make less than $1 million annually.
Apple said that aside from the fund for developers -- of which
nearly a third will go to lawyers and court costs associated with
the Aug. 26 settlement -- the commitments it made will apply to all
developers on its platform.
"We would like to thank the developers who worked with us to reach
these agreements in support of the goals of the App Store and to
the benefit of all of our users," Phil Schiller, Apple Fellow who
oversees the App Store, said in a statement.
The agreement in the case of Cameron et al v. Apple is separate
from Apple's continued litigation with Fortnite developer Epic
Games, but the proposed settlement will need approval from the
judge in that case. Some of Apple's critics say they're
disappointed by the settlement, saying it's largely a win for Apple
because many of the concessions hinge on keeping existing plans in
place or on clarifying App Store rules it hadn't consistently
enforced.
"This offer does nothing to address the structural, foundational
problems facing all developers, large and small, undermining
innovation and competition in the app ecosystem," Meghan DiMuzio,
executive director of the Coalition for App Fairness, said in a
statement. "Allowing developers to communicate with their customers
about lower prices outside of their apps is not a concession and
further highlights Apple's total control over the app marketplace."
Epic Games, which helped form the coalition, declined to comment
beyond DiMuzio's statement.
Spotify, which is pressing US and European regulators to rein in
Apple and its App Store, also criticized the agreement. "Apple has
been allowed to abuse their dominant position for years, and we
continue to seek real reforms to ensure that companies can innovate
and compete fairly, on a level playing field," the streaming music
company said.
Apple's move to settle the developers' lawsuit marks the latest
twist in its ongoing legal battles over the App Store. Apple has
found itself increasingly battling app developers over the past few
years. Those devs say the tech giant too tightly controls its App
Store, which is the only way that consumers can install programs on
their iPhones and iPads.
While Apple's settlement is an interesting legal twist in that
ongoing drama, it comes as the iPhone maker and Fortnite maker Epic
await a ruling from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers following their
battle in her California court room earlier this year. In that
case, Epic accuses Apple of acting as a monopoly, using its power
over the App Store to force developers to accept high commission
fees of up to 30% for in-app purchases. While that all sounds like
a petty argument over who makes how much money when we buy things
on our phones, the outcome could upend the way Apple does business
and change the way we get and pay for apps on our devices.
Apple isn't the only company that Epic is fighting with over these
issues. The Fortnite game maker also sued Google last year in a
similar disagreement over the handling of payments. Lawmakers and
regulators have joined in too, pushing Apple to justify its
commissions and its tight control over its platform, while probing
Google's behavior as well.
As part of the agreement, Apple also promised it would add more
features to its developer program. For example, Apple said it will
allow developers to choose from among 500 price points for apps and
in-app purchases -- up from fewer than 100 before. It also promised
it wouldn't change its Apple Store search system or its small
business pricing programs "for at least the next three years."
Though the proposed settlement does allow developers to communicate
with users by email, Apple said it will not allow developers to add
information in apps that points people to cheaper subscriptions or
cheaper alternatives to pay for items outside the App Store.
CNET's Joan E. Solsman contributed to this report. [GN]
ASC REGENITY: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASC Regenity, Inc.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. ASC Regenity, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07206-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ASC Regenity Inc. is located in New York and is part of the Health
and Personal Care Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ASSETCARE LLC: Maman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AssetCare, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Nir Maman, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers v. AssetCare, LLC, CF Medical,
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04863 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Assetcare LLC -- https://assetcarellc.com/ -- is a small debt
collection agency headquartered in Sherman, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
ATLANTIC COLLECTION: Merriman Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Collection
Agency Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alan Merriman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Atlantic Collection Agency Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:21-cv-01143-VLB (D. Conn., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Atlantic Collection Agency --
https://www.atlanticcollectionagency.com/ -- is a full service
collection agency, specializing in medical debt collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
ATLAS OIL: Wilson Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOEY WILSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ATLAS OIL COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-00142, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas on August 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case
No. 5:21-cv-00794 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Atlas Oil Company is an oil field services company, with its
principal place of business located at 24501 Ecorse Road, Taylor,
Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Taneska Jones, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
tjones@eeoc.net
ATLAS SENIOR: Green Seeks Medical Technicians' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
BERNITA GREEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATLAS SENIOR LIVING, LLC f/k/a SHEPHERD
SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00237-WTM-CLR (S.D.
Ga., August 20, 2021) alleges the Defendant of willful violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Medical Technician at the Legacy at Savannah Quarters senior living
facility within the three years preceding the filing of this
complaint.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
asserting that despite frequently working more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendant deprived her and other similarly situated
employees of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the
Defendant automatically deducts 30-minute or one-hour meal period
from their time records although they frequently unable to take
meal break because they perform work through their meal breaks.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to keep accurate records of their
hours worked, says the Plaintiff.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Medical
Technicians, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages for a period of
three years, liquidated damages in an amount equal to their unpaid
wages, their reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and
other relief to which they may be entitled.
Atlas Senior Living, LLC f/k/a Shepherd Senior Living, LLC operates
Savannah Quarters senior living facility. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT P.C.
75 14th St., N.E. 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Tel: (404) 873-8000
Fax: (404) 873-8050
E-mail: acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com
AUDIBLE INC: Faces Golden Suit Over Royalty Book Payments
---------------------------------------------------------
GOLDEN UNICORN ENTERPRISES, INC.; and BIG DOG BOOKS, LLC,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. AUDIBLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07059 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
20, 2021) seeks to recover royalty payments owed to the Plaintiffs
and class members for audio distribution rights in their works
(hereinafter, the "Works") that the Defendant systemically withheld
from thousands of authors, in bad faith, and in violation of its
contracts with those authors.
According to the complaint, Audible is a distributor of audio
recordings ("Audiobooks") of over 200,000 novels and nonfiction
books that are written by thousands of authors. Audible has
maintained a secret system of accounting for distribution of the
Audiobooks that results in authors and copyright holders
(collectively, the "Authors") being paid far less than 25% to 40%
of the value of the Audiobooks it distributes, the percentages for
which they contracted. This central feature of this accounting
subterfuge is that Audible provides its customers and subscribers
with far more Audiobooks than are reflected in the terms that it
reveals publicly and the numbers it reveals to Authors.
This course of behavior allegedly breaches the terms of the
contracts between Audible and the Authors unjustly enriches
Audible, and breaches the duty of good faith and fair dealing that
a party to any contract owes to its counterparty.
The gap between the value of the actual Audiobook distributions and
the value on which Audible calculated royalties was revealed to
Authors on or around October 19, 2020, by a glitch in the software
that Audible used to report sales and royalty numbers to authors.
Without this chance occurrence, Authors would still be in the dark,
says the suit.
Audible, Inc. provides digital spoken audio information and
entertainment services. The Company offers digital edition books,
newspapers, magazines, television, programming, and radio for
personal computers, compact disks, and mobile devices. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
280 S. Mangum Street, Suite 400
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone: (919) 226-1913
Facsimile: (984) 227-6962
E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com
-and-
Daniel Bryson, Esq.
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
mbreit@milberg.com
arado@milberg.com
byagman@milberg.com
AUTOMATION PERSONNEL: Madkin Suit Removed to S.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Teresa Madkin, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. Automation Personnel Services
Inc., Case No. 01-cv-21-902134 was removed from the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on Aug. 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01177-SGC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Automation Personnel Services -- https://www.apstemps.com/ -- is a
highly-specialized employment agency concentrating on light
industrial, technical, contact centers, manufacturing, skilled
labor, and automotive.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
QUINN CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
Two North Twentieth Street
2 20th Street North, Suite 930
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 870-9989
Fax: (205) 803-4143
Email: rrouco@qcwdr.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John W. Dodson, Esq.
DODSON GREGORY, LLP
PO Box 530725
Birmingham, AL 35253
Phone: (205) 834-9170
Email: jwd@dodsongregory.com
AVANT LLC: McDaid Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patricha McDaid, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Avant, LLC formerly known as:
AVANT, INC., Case No. GD-21-008447 was removed from the Allegheny
County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Aug. 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01135-DSC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Avant, LLC, formerly AvantCredit -- https://www.avant.com/ -- is a
private Chicago, Illinois-based company in the financial technology
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Phone: (412) 223-5740
Fax: (412) 626-7101
Email: csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Devin Chwastyk, Esq.
McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
100 Pine St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1166
Phone: (717) 237-5482
Email: dchwastyk@mcneeslaw.com
BALTIMORE, MD: Protesters Demand "Safe Schools" Days
----------------------------------------------------
foxbaltimore.com reports that for weeks they've been staging
protest on North Avenue.
"People Empowered By The Struggle" or PEBTS, the same group behind
a promised class action lawsuit against city they say for failing
students, will stage another protest tomorrow, their demands
expanding.
Pastor Shannon Wright, former candidate for Baltimore City Mayor,
is joining forces with the group for a demonstration she says
focused on the safety of thousands of Baltimore city students
heading back to school in a pandemic.
"We can't even get to the lack of academic success because now it's
really a life and death health problem, the district still is
ignoring parents and the parents have legitimate concerns about
sending their children to school," said Wright.
The plan to hand deliver nearly 150 signatures they continue to
gather to the Board of Education Sunday.
They want virtual learning as an option and for elementary students
to have outdoor eating among other things.
PEBTS founder and rally fixture Yolanda Pulley told FOX45 News by
phone that because of COVID-19 many parents are refusing to return
their kids to class.
"The district shouldn't be forcing them to choose between their
child's safety or court action," said Pulley.
Wright says although tomorrow is about health and safety their
initial call to action remains the same.
"In order for the district to be healed and fixed Dr. Santelises
needs to go," she said.
City schools earlier this month rejected the idea of firing
Baltimore City Schools CEO Dr. Sonja Santelises, but said they
respected the right of protesters to be heard. [GN]
BANDI LABORATORIES: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bandi Laboratories,
LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Bandi Laboratories,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-07208 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bandi Laboratories -- https://bandi-labs.com/ -- is a line of
professional cosmetics specially designed for use by aestheticians
and physicians.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Knudson Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUDY KNUDSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC and ELANCO ANIMAL
HEALTH, INC., Case No. 6:21-cv-03108, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 26,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04449 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act by misrepresenting Seresto flea collars
as a safe way to prevent flea and ticks for dogs and cats.
Bayer HealthCare LLC is a manufacturer of healthcare and medical
products with its headquarters in New Jersey.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
with its headquarters in 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
BETH SKINNER: Soto Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beth Skinner, et al.
The case is styled as David Soto, Kenneth Lee Doss, All Other
Similarly Situated Individuals Within The Iowa Department Of
Corrections v. Beth Skinner, Sean Howard, Sean Crawford, Craig
Andrew, Tammy Salviati, Janet Fiedler, Iowa Department of
Corrections, Andrew Boettger, Andrea Muelhaupt, Iowa Board of
Parole, Defendants, William A. Hill, Interested Party, Case No.
4:21-cv-00255-JAJ-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, Aug. 27, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Beth Skinner -- https://doc.iowa.gov/about-us/director -- was
chosen to lead the Iowa Department of Corrections by Gov. Kim
Reynolds beginning June 3, 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appears pro se.
The Interested Party is represented by:
William A. Hill, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1305 East Walnut Street
Hoover State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Phone: (515) 281-6162
Fax: (515) 281-4902
BILL WRIGHT INC: Stampes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bill Wright, Inc. The
case is styled as Peter Stampes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
BILL WRIGHT, INC., Case No. BCV-21-101995 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Aug. 27, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Bill Wright, Inc. -- https://www.billwrighttoyota.com/ -- operates
as a car dealer. The Company offers the retail sale of new and used
automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
BILLIE INC: Arreola Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Selinda Arreola, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff; Does 1 - 10, inclusive,
Movant v. Billie, Inc., Case No. 21STCV27331 was removed from the
Superior Court of CA, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on August 27, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-06927 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Billie -- https://www.mybillie.com/ -- is a new body brand offering
high-quality shaving supplies and body care products at fair
prices, and without the "pink tax."[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Kimberly Irene Culp Cloyd, Esq.
FENWICK AND WEST LLP
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (650) 988-8500
Fax: (650) 938-5200
Email: KCulp@fenwick.com
BOTTLING GROUP: Pujanes Labor Code Suit Goes to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILCON PUJANES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BOTTLING GROUP, LLC and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00304322, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on August 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01524-KJM-JDP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code by failing to provide the Plaintiff and
similarly situated drivers compliant meal and rest periods.
Bottling Group, LLC is a beverage company headquartered in Somers,
New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James H. Berry, Jr., Esq.
Kate LaQuay, Esq.
LANDAU LAW LLP
1880 Century Park East, Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 557-0050
Facsimile: (310) 557-0056
E-mail: jberry@Landaufirm.com
klaquay@Landaufirm.com
BP SOLUTIONS: Payne FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHASE PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BP SOLUTIONS LLC; AYR WELLNESS
HOLDINGS LLC, EMPLOYEE(S)/AGENT(S) DOES 1-10; and ROE CORPORATIONS
11-20, inclusive, Case No. A-21-838212-C, was removed from the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada on August 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-01578-RFB-BNW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to provide
earned tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
conversion, and unjust enrichment.
BP Solutions LLC is a management consultancy firm doing business in
Nevada.
AYR Wellness Holdings LLC is a wellness company doing business in
Nevada. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew L. Durham, Esq.
KING & DURHAM PLLC
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 220
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Telephone: (702) 833-1100
Facsimile: (702) 833-1107
E-mail: mdurham@kingdurham.com
BUILDERS CONCRETE: Myles FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dammion Myles, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Builders
Concrete Inc., Concrete Holding Company of California, Inc., Viking
Ready Mix Co., Inc., National Ready Mixed Concrete Co., Case No.
BCV-20-102375, was removed from the Kern County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Aug. 27, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01309-DAD-JLT to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Builders Concrete Inc. -- https://www.buildersconcrete.com/ -- was
founded in 1989. The company's line of business includes the
manufacturing of portland cement concrete.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 551-1223
Fax: (858) 551-1232
Email: kyle@bamlawca.com
aj@bamlawca.com
deblouw@bamlawca.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Patricia Marie DeSantis, Esq.
R. Scott Brink, Esq.
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL
1900 Avenue Of The Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 785-5315
Fax: (310) 203-0567
Email: pdesantis@jmbm.com
rsb@jmbm.com
- and -
Taylor Nicole Burras, Esq.
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 5th Fl
San Francisco, CA 94111-3813
Phone: (415) 398-8080
Fax: (415) 398-5584
Email: tnb@jmbm.com
CAI INTERNATIONAL: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Jones Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.; KATHRYN G. JACKSON;
ANDREW S. OGAWA; TIMOTHY B. PAGE; GARY M. SAWKA; DAVID G.
REMINGTON; and JOHN H. WILLIFORD, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01200-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 22, 2021) is an action against CAI
International, Inc. ("CAI" or the "Company") and the members of
CAI's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual
Defendants") alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to
Mitsubishi HC Capital Inc. ("MHC"), through its subsidiary Cattleya
Acquisition Corp. (the "Proposed Transaction").
According to the complaint, on June 17, 2021, CAI announced that it
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") pursuant to which CAI stockholders will receive $56 in
cash for each share of CAI common stock they own.
On August 4, 2021, CAI filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC. Allegedly, the Proxy is
materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails
to disclose material information regarding: (i) the background of
the Proposed Transaction; (ii) the Company's financial projections
and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor Centerview Partners LLC ("Centerview"); and (iii) Company
insiders' potential conflicts of interest. Without additional
information, the Proxy is materially misleading in violation of the
federal securities laws, says the suit.
CAI INTERNATIONAL, INC. operates as a container leasing and
management company. The Company provides leasing and container
management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com
-and-
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 860-9158
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: raymond@bespc.com
CALIFORNIA CLINIC: Underpays Commercial Technicians, Tungcab Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNCARLO TUNGCAB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA CLINIC MANAGEMENT, LLC,
doing business as ACUITY EYE GROUP; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV31458 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 25, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay for all hours
worked, failure to pay overtime hours, failure to provide with
adequate wage statements, failure to provide meal and rest breaks
and premium pay thereof, failure to timely pay employees, failure
to provide all wages at the time of termination or resignation, and
failure to reimburse business related expenses.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a commercial technician
in California.
California Clinic Management, LLC, doing business as Acuity Eye
Group, is a provider of eye care services based in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Preston H. Lim, Esq.
LIM LAW GROUP, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2350
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 900-3000
Facsimile: (213) 204-3000
E-mail: phl@limlawgroup.com
CARDINAL LAW: Reinardy Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cardinal Law
Group, et al. The case is styled as Shawn Reinardy, Dawn Reinardy,
Evangeline Reinardy, individually, and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. The Cardinal Law Group, The
Freeman Group, Case No. 0:21-cv-01931-SRN-KMM (D. Minn., Aug. 27,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Cardinal Law Group -- http://cardinallawgroup.com/-- is an
intellectual property law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael G Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS LAW, PLLC
412 South Fourth Street, #1050
East Grain Exchange Bldg
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone: (612) 677-8345
Email: mike@phillipslawmn.com
- and -
Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: (651) 770-9707
Fax: (651) 704-0907
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
CASA LINDA FURNITURE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casa Linda Furniture,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Portia Mason, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Casa Linda Furniture,
Inc., a California corporation; Does 1 to 10 inclusive; Case No.
2:21-cv-06944 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Casa Linda -- https://furniturecasalinda.com/ -- offers elegant
home furnishings, affordable prices, excellent customer service,
and easy credit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
CELINA, TN: Hamilton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HAMILTON, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CELINA, TENNESSEE, and TONYA
SPEARS, FORMER MAYOR, in her individual and official capacities,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00035 (M.D. Tenn., August 23, 2021)
brings complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees against the Defendants for their alleged
unlawful employment practices that violated its employees'
constitutional rights under the Tennessee Public Employee Political
Freedom Act and the Tennessee Public Protection Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sewer treatment
operator supervisor from July 6, 1999 through August 25, 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that he was paid on an hourly basis for the
work he performed for the Defendants, but did not receive a weekly
base wage from the Defendants. Although the Defendants have a
policy provision for overtime but it is not followed, thereby
intentionally and willfully failing to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. In
addition, the Plaintiff was required to attend training without
being compensated. Allegedly, the Defendant unlawfully terminated
the Plaintiff from employment with the city of Celina for
insubordination.
City of Celina, Tennessee is the county seat of Clay County,
Tennessee, United States. Tonya Spears is a former mayor of Celina
City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana R. Looper, Esq.
165 E. Spring Street
Cookeville, TN 38501
Tel: (931) 526-5594
Fax: (931) 526-5441
E-mail: danalooper@danalooperlaw.com
CENTRAL METRO: Roesner Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Metro Realty
L.L.C. The case is styled as Franziska Roesner, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Central Metro Realty
L.L.C. doing business as: Central Metro Realty, Case No.
2:21-cv-01152 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Central Metro Realty -- https://www.centralmetro.com/ -- provides
an unparalleled real estate experience for agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION: Dismissal of Lescavage Suit Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM J. LESCAVAGE, On behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, PSEA/DEA; CHARLES WALTERS;
CAROLYN FUNKHOUSER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:19-278 (M.D.
Pa.), Jduge Malachy E. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania grants in part and dismisses as
moot in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss is brought pursuant to the
provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). This rule provides for the
dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The moving
party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated,
and dismissal is appropriate only if, accepting all of the facts
alleged in the complaint as true, the plaintiff has failed to plead
"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face."
The facts alleged must be sufficient to "raise a right to relief
above the speculative level." This requirement "calls for enough
facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence of" necessary elements of the plaintiff's cause of action.
Furthermore, in order to satisfy federal pleading requirements, the
plaintiff must "provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief,"
which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."
Accepting the factual allegations of the Plaintiff's complaint as
true, the Plaintiff worked as a correctional institution instructor
at the State Correctional Institution at Frackville
("SCI-Frackville") for more than 29 years before his retirement in
April 2018. During this time, he worked his way up through the
salary and educational scales in the successive collective
bargaining agreements ("CBA") between CIVEA and the Commonwealth
until he ultimately reached the maximum salary level.
In 2017, the Defendants disclosed for the first time a new
2016-2019 CBA which was negotiated with the Commonwealth. Older
teachers subject to this new CBA were deprived of the longstanding
and customary one-time annual cash payment for members who had
reached the maximum step of the salary scale, while the salaries of
all other employees were increased 4.5% annually for three years.
The elimination of the one-time payment for workers such as the
Plaintiff who had reached the maximum pay level deprived those
workers, not only of the one-time payments, but also of loss of
pension benefits. It further denied the workers of the compounded
amounts they would have received for paid time off, as well as a
higher rate of overtime pay.
According to the complaint, the 2016-2019 CBA was arrived at in
secret and without prior notice to the members of the union until
presented in 2017 during a video conference. The Plaintiff and
others protested to the Defendants about the elimination of the
annual one-time cash payment and its effect on senior members,
however, the Defendants rejected the protests and obtained
ratification of the new CBA.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff brought claims for disparate
treatment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA") ("Count I"), disparate treatment in violation of the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA") ("Count II"), a
collective action for violation of the ADEA for age based disparate
impact ("Count III"), a class action for violation of the PHRA for
age based disparate impact ("Count IV"), a disparate treatment
claim for breach of the duty of fair representation ("DFR") ("Count
V"), and a disparate impact class action for breach of the DFR
("Count VI").
In their motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, the
Defendants raise a number of arguments, several of which are moot
in light of parallel arguments raised in a subsequently filed
motion for summary judgment. Moreover, a joint stipulation filed
with the Court on May 3, 2021 moots the arguments raised in the
motion to dismiss related to the claims in Counts I, III, V and VI
against the individual defendants asserting claims under the ADEA
and the common law duty of fair representation. Thus, the only
remaining arguments which require the attention of the Court in the
motion to dismiss are the claims against the individual defendants
in Counts II and IV of the complaint which assert claims under the
PHRA.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the PHRA does
not impose individual liability in this context. They argue that
the PHRA allows individual liability only in two narrow
circumstances: (1) if an agent of a labor organization individually
retaliates against a member; or (2) if an agent "aids, abets,
incites, compels or coerces the doing of any act declared by this
section to be an unlawful discriminatory practice."
The Plaintiff counters that he has met the pleading requirements to
show liability under the second circumstance by alleging "the
individual Defendants, who were the Union's principal collective
bargaining negotiators, stealthily set out to deprive those older
Union members similarly situated to the Plaintiff of the customary
one-time annual cash payment by proposing, promoting, advancing,
creating and agreeing with the Commonwealth to eliminate that
one-time cash payment for those workers who had reached the maximum
step of the salary scale."
The Defendants respond that the Plaintiff's argument does not
address the fact that individual defendants cannot be liable under
an aiding and abetting theory because the CBA was ratified through
a democratic vote of union members after all CBA provisions were
explained and debated by the membership.
Judge Mannion holds that although the Plaintiff argues that the
individual defendants "stealthily set out to deprive those older
Union members similarly situated to him of the customary one-time
annual cash payment by proposing, promoting, advancing, creating
and agreeing with the Commonwealth to eliminate that one-time cash
payment for those workers who had reached the maximum step of the
salary scale," the Plaintiff does not dispute the Defendants'
argument that the individual defendants cannot be held liable under
an aiding and abetting theory because the CBA was ratified through
a democratic vote of union members after all CBA provisions were
explained and debated by the membership. In fact, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff has provided no support for any argument that
individual union officers can be held liable for negotiating
contract provisions approved by a democratic vote of union members.
As such, he grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss on this
basis.
In light of the foregoing, an appropriate order will be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/24fc6fbd from Leagle.com.
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Bullen Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Bullen, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Credence Resource
Management, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01520-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal., Aug.
27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Credence Resource Management -- https://credencerm.com/ -- is a
debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Branden Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 308
San Diego, CA 92108-3611
Phone: 866-219-3343
Fax: 866-219-8344
Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 222-7429
Fax: (866) 431-3292
Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
D'ERRICO'S PLATINUM: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D'errico's Platinum
Corp. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. D'errico's
Platinum Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-04818 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
D'errico's Platinum Corp doing business as D'Errico Jewelery --
https://store.derricojewelry.com/ -- is an engagement ring and
wedding band company located in Scarsdale, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Jackson Slams Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------
David Jackson, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Discover Financial Services Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04529 (N.D. Ill., August 24, 2021), seeks
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Discover Financial Services operates a credit card brand and
financial services company where it loans money for purchases.
Jackson claims to have constantly been receiving collection calls
for a certain "Jennifer Cook" on his cellphone despite informing
Discover that they had the wrong number and that he doesn't have a
Discover credit card. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Ignacio Hiraldo
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
Email: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com
DORASTI IMPORTS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dorasti Imports, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Dorasti Imports, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04851 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dorasti Imports doing business as Dorasti Caviar --
https://www.dorasti.com/ -- continues to provide the finest caviar
by keeping strong ties and partnerships with dedicated aqua farmers
from around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Sunscreens Contain Benzene, Algofi Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEBE ALGOFI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., EDGEWELL PERSONAL
CARE COMPANY, EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC, EDGEWELL PERSONAL
CARE, LLC, PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC., and SUN PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-01057-NCC (E.D. Mo., August 24, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act and the New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
over-the-counter sunscreen products under the name Banana Boat. The
Defendants represented the products as safe and effective but the
products were tested and shown to be adulterated with benzene, a
known human carcinogen. The presence of benzene in the Defendants'
Banana Boat sunscreen products was not disclosed in the products'
label. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Defendants'
sunscreen products had she known there was a risk the products may
contain benzene, the suit says.
Energizer Holdings, Inc. is an American manufacturer of batteries,
with its principal place of business at 533 Maryville University
Drive, St. Louis, Missouri.
Edgewell Personal Care Company is an American consumer products
corporation, with its principal place of business in Chesterfield,
Missouri.
Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC is a personal care products
manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Shelton,
Connecticut.
Edgewell Personal Care, LLC is a personal care products
manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Shelton,
Connecticut.
Playtex Products, LLC is an American brand name for undergarments,
baby products, gloves, feminine products, and sunscreen, with its
principal place of business in Shelton, Connecticut.
Sun Pharmaceuticals, LLC is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business in Shelton, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
Telephone: (314) 541-0317
E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
- and –
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
D. Patrick Huyett, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
phuyett@fklmlaw.com
- and –
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
Aarthi Manohar, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com
dabrahams@kohnswift.com
chillwig@kohnswift.com
amanohar@kohnswift.com
- and –
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
ENPHASE ENERGY: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
August 17, 2021, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a
putative class action asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against an energy technology company and
certain of its executives. Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al.,
No. 5:20-cv-04036-BLF, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2021).
Plaintiff alleged, based on a short seller report released the same
day plaintiff's complaint was filed, that the company
misrepresented its revenues, engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices, and overstated the growth in its gross
margins. The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
any misrepresentation or scienter and, therefore, dismissed the
action, while granting plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to
"rectify the defects" identified by the Court.
As a threshold matter, the Court considered and rejected
defendants' loss causation argument that short seller reports could
not serve as corrective disclosures. To the contrary, the Court
held, unlike reports from anonymous short sellers or based on
public information, the short seller report in question could be
corrective because it was not anonymous and purportedly was the
result of an investigation that included interviews with former
employees. Id. at 6-7.
The Court concluded, however, that plaintiff's allegations of
misrepresentations—which were "far from trivial," including that
revenue was inflated by 47.7%—were backed by "flimsy factual
allegations" that were "entirely predicated on the [short seller]
[r]eport's insistence that [the company's] financial reporting does
not add up." Id. at 7. The Court explained that the mere fact that
plaintiff or the short seller report could not "reconcile the
financials" did not, without more, support a claim for
misrepresentation. Id. at 7-8. The Court further observed that
plaintiff did not allege any accounting restatement or missed
earnings revealing the impact of the alleged accounting issues, and
that it was "wildly implausible" that such events would not have
occurred "[i]n light of the severity of the revenue inflation
alleged." Id. at 8.
The Court further held that, while plaintiff alleged that the
company improperly deferred revenue, plaintiff failed to plead any
facts indicating why that activity was improper under Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). Id. The Court emphasized
that GAAP provisions are "subject to interpretation," and that the
factual allegations failed to show why the company's accounting
decision was "not merely the difference between two permissible
judgments." Id. at 9.
In addition, the Court determined that plaintiff failed to
adequately allege scienter under various theories. Plaintiff's
contention that scienter could be inferred from "the enormity of
[the company's] GAAP violations" could not survive the Court's
rejection of the GAAP allegations. Id. at 10. And while plaintiff
pointed to "numerous . . . red flags," the Court held that argument
lacked "the kind of particularized facts that normally buttress
scienter allegations." Id. Moreover, while plaintiff alleged
suspicious stock sales, the Court concluded that all but one of the
alleged insiders identified by plaintiff were not defendants and
their trades were therefore irrelevant to the scienter analysis,
and, for the remaining individual, plaintiff's allegations were
"threadbare" and failed to allege the proportion of the
individual's shares that were sold or anything about past trading
patterns, or otherwise to explain why the sales were suspicious.
Id. at 11. Plaintiff's reliance on anonymous statements by former
employees also failed to establish scienter due to the lack of
"particularized allegations establishing the employees' reliability
and personal knowledge." Id. at 10. [GN]
EVERGREEN ALLIANCE: Saavedra Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ SAAVEDRA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVERGREEN ALLIANCE GOLF
LIMITED, L.P., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01200991-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on August 24,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06832 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 provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages upon
termination of employment, failure to provide accurate statements
and maintain required records, and unfair business practices.
Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited, L.P. is a provider of golf course
management services, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Grace Y. Horoupian, Esq.
Selwyn Chu, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-2424
Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
E-mail: ghoroupian@fisherphillips.com
schu@fisherphillips.com
FABRICS WORLD: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fabric World USA Inc.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Fabric World USA Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-04819 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fabric World USA -- https://fabricsworldusa.com/ -- is a fashion
fabric store with a big selection, including many spandex options,
plus lace, satin & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
FULL TRUCK: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.
(NYSE: YMM), Coinbase Global Inc. (NASDAQ: COIN), Concho Resources
Inc. (Other OTC: CXO), and PayPal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PYPL).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (NYSE: YMM)
Class Period: June 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2021
On or about June 22, 2021, FTA sold about 82.5 million American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in its IPO for $19 per ADS, raising
nearly $1.6 billion in new capital.
On July 5, 2021, FTA reported that the Company was subject to a
review by the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC") and that
"FTA's Yunmanman apps and Huochebang apps . . . are required to
suspend new user registration in China during the review period."
On this news, the Company's ADS price declined by $1.27 per ADS, or
approximately 6.7%, from $19.02 per ADS on July 2, 2021 to close at
$17.75 per ADS on July 6, 2021, which is approximately 6.6% below
the IPO price, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) FTA's apps Yunmanman and Huochebang would face an imminent
cybersecurity review by the CAC; (ii) the CAC would require FTA to
suspend new user registration; (iii) FTA needed to conduct a
"comprehensive self-examination of any cybersecurity risks"; (iv)
FTA needed to "continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and
technology capabilities"; and (v) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times and negligently prepared.
For more information on the Full Truck class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/YMM
Coinbase Global Inc. (Nasdaq: COIN)
Class Period: April 14, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 20, 2021
On May 17, 2021, Coinbase undermined its representations in the
Offering Materials that the Company's existing cash and cash
equivalents were sufficient by announcing plans to raise capital
via a convertible bond sale. On May 19, 2021, Coinbase revealed
technical problems experienced by users on its platform, including
"delays…due to network congestion" effecting "those who want to
get their money out."
On this news, the price of Coinbase shares fell $23.44 per share,
nearly 10% over two consecutive trading sessions, to close at
$224.80 per share on May 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus used to effectuate the Company's Offering were false and
misleading and omitted to state that, at the time of the Offering:
(1) Coinbase required a sizeable cash injection; (2) Coinbase's
platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were
increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to
a larger user base; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
For more information on the Coinbase class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/COIN
Concho Resources Inc. (Other OTC: CXO)
Class Period: February 21, 2018 and July 31, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2021
On July 31, 2019, after the close of trading, Concho released its
financial results for the second quarter 2019. On this date, the
Company revealed that the Dominator Project's 23 wells were spaced
"too tight," and that Concho had already "incorporated learnings
from [the Dominator Project] into its second half of 2019 program
and future Delaware Basin projects." Concho also revealed that it
would be forced to scale back production targets for the rest of
this year, including by reducing its active rig count to 18, down
from 33 in the first quarter 2019.
On this news, Concho sank 22% to close at $75.97 per share on
August 1, 2019, down from the closing price of $97.68 per share on
July 31, 2019.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the well spacing at the Company's Dominator Project was
aggressive and highly risky, and premised on no reasonable basis to
believe it would work as intended; (ii) Concho's practice of
implementing tighter well spacing was not relegated to a handful of
"tests" and therefore more widespread than the market was led to
believe; (iii) it was known or recklessly disregarded that any
measures to mitigate well spacing risks were non-existent and/or
impossible; (iv) these risks had manifested during the Class
Period, causing underground well interference and permanently
decreasing production, forcing the Company to scale back production
targets and adopt more conservative spacing measures in its other
projects; (v) it would take multiple quarters to unwind the impacts
of the widespread well spacing failure; and (vi) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Concho class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CXO
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PYPL)
Class Period: September February 9, 2017 to July 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2021
On July 29, 2021, PayPal filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), reporting the
Company's financial and operating results for the second quarter of
2021. In its quarterly report, PayPal disclosed investigations by
the SEC and the CFPB. Specifically, PayPal disclosed receipt of a
Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB related "to the marketing
and use of PayPal Credit in connection with certain merchants that
provide educational services"; and that the Company has "responded
to subpoenas and requests for information received from the [SEC]
relating to whether the interchange rates paid to the bank that
issues debit cards bearing our licensed brands were consistent with
Regulation II of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, and to the reporting of marketing fees earned from the
Company's branded card program."
On this news, PayPal's stock price fell $18.81 per share, or 6.23%,
to close at $283.17 per share on July 29, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PayPal had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures; (ii) as a result, PayPal's business
practices with respect to PayPal Credit remained non-compliant with
applicable laws and/or regulations; (iii) PayPal's practices
regarding payment of interchange rates related to its debit cards
were likewise non-compliant with applicable laws and/or
regulations; (iv) accordingly, PayPal's revenues derived from its
PayPal Credit and debit card practices were in part the subject of
improper conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) all the foregoing
subjected the Company to an increased risk of regulatory
investigation and enforcement; and (vi) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
For more information on the PayPal class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PYPL
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS LLC: Faces Hampton Suit Over Defective Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
DURWIN HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-00250-KEW (E.D. Okla., Aug. 20, 2021) is a class action
lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff seeking damages and equitable
relief individually and on behalf of the other Class members, each
of whom purchased or leased one or more model year 2011-2014 GM
vehicles fitted with defective Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec
5300 LC9 engines (the "Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
disclose the truth about the Class Vehicles and failed to remedy
the well-established defects in the Class Vehicles that were on the
road.
In 2006, for its model year 2007 vehicles, the Defendants
introduced its redesigned Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine and
installed it in many of its most popular vehicles, as listed above.
Unfortunately, the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine consumes an
abnormally and improperly high quantity of oil that far exceeds
industry standards for reasonable oil consumption. This excessive
oil consumption results in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity
levels, and corresponding internal engine component damage, the
suit says.
Allegedly, multiple factors contribute to the excessive oil
consumption problem in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. The
combination of these factors, and the resultant excessive oil
consumption, is herein referred to as the "Oil Consumption Defect."
It is an inherent defect in each of the Class Vehicles. The primary
cause of the Oil Consumption Defect is that the piston rings that
the Defendants installed within the Generation IV Vortec 5300
Engines fail to keep oil in the crankcase, added the suit.
General Motors LLC designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle
protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and
automotive financing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Thetford, Esq.
Evan M. McLemore, Esq.
Grant B. Thetford, Esq.
LEVINSON SMITH & HUFFMAN, PC
1743 East 71 st Street
Tulsa, OK 74136
Telephone: (918) 492-4433
Facsimile: (918) 492-6224
-and-
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
-and-
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
Tyner D. Helms, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW,
METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
Tyner.Helms@BeasleyAllen.com
GLOBAL CREDIT: Gonzales Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Grace
Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Pinnacle Credit
Services LLC, John Does 1-25; Case No. 3:21-cv-02023-E (N.D. Tex.,
Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Global Credit & Collection Corporation --
http://www.globalcollection.net/-- is located in Chicago, IL,
United States and is part of the Collection Agencies Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Averts New York Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. won an appeal of class-action status for a case
that accuses the company of misleading shareholders by masking
conflicts of interest in mortgage-backed securities it sold.
The federal court of appeals in New York on Aug. 26 threw out a
lower-court ruling allowing the case to proceed as a class action
on behalf of shareholders. The court said it was following a June
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case.
The case is Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs,
18-03667, Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Manhattan). [GN]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Wages, Chaisson et al. Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW CHAISSON and ROBERT FOXX, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-11377-WGY (D. Mass., August 23, 2021) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking to
recover damages and other relief for its alleged unlawful patterns
and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
applicable Massachusetts law provisions.
The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendant as non-exempt and
hourly-paid auto claim adjusters.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees were not adequately compensated for all the work
they perform for the Defendant, specifically for the off the clock
work and during meal time work completing certain number of
inspections per day to meet the quotas within allotted paid hours
per day. As a result, they did not receive compensation at least
the required minimum wage for all hours worked and the required
overtime premiums. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide
them with true and accurate wage statements, says the suit.
Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. provides insurance
services to government employees in Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
FAIR WORK P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Tel: (617) 607-3261
Fax: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
- and –
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 447-8888
Fax: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (800) 616-4000
Fax: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
GRANDE COSMETICS: Morgan Files Labeling Suit Over Lash Serum
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Morgan, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the University of
Maryland Medical System 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan and UMMS
Voluntary 403(b) Plan, Plaintiffs, v. Grande Cosmetics, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-06839 (C.D. Cal., August 24, 2021), seeks
to recover monetary relief for violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
Grande Cosmetics is an American manufacturer specializing in beauty
products, selling GrandeLASH-MD Lash Enhancing Serum, GrandeBROW
Brow Enhancing Serum, and GrandeHAIR Enhancement Serum. Said serums
contain the active ingredient isopropyl cloprostenate which is in
the same class of compounds as the active ingredient found in
prescription drugs that grow eyelashes. It allegedly has potential
serious side effects like iris discoloration, development of
growths in the eye and the complete loss of eyelashes.
Morgan purchased one of the Enhancement Products, GrandeLASH-MD and
claims that said product does not contain warnings on its label
that it potentially can cause such serious side effects. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Allison W. Parr, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
aparr@tzlegal.com
- and -
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: (510) 254-6808
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com
HERSHEY COMPANY: Lederman Files Hot Fudge Topping Mislabeling Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Lederman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Hershey Company, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-04528 (N.D. Ill., August 24, 2021), seeks to recover actual
damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for breaches of
express warranty, and implied warranty of merchantability under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
Hershey manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises, markets,
and sells a chocolate topping identified as "Hot Fudge." Its
packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give
consumers the impression that they are buying a product containing
hot fudge. However, Lederman claims that the product lacks
ingredients essential to hot fudge, namely cream and whole milk,
and substitutes vegetable oil, skim milk and whey. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Tel: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
HOST INT'L: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Cazares Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESUS CAZARES, individually and on behalf of other
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOST
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 20-55803 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the
Plaintiff's class action lawsuit.
The Plaintiff appeals the dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
of his putative class action against Defendant Host, alleging
violations of California's Labor Code and unfair competition law.
Cazares alleges that he and putative class members are entitled to
compensation for time spent passing through airport security checks
en route to their workstation at the Admiral Club in a secured
portion of Los Angeles International Airport.
The Ninth Circuit notes that California's wage orders require
employers to pay employees for all "hours worked," defined as "the
time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or
permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." An employer
exercises control whenever it "directs, commands or restrains an
employee." The level of the employer's control over its employees,
rather than the mere fact that the employer requires the employees'
activity, is determinative concerning whether an activity is
compensable under the 'hours worked' control clause.
The California Supreme Court has "emphasized that whether an
activity is required remains probative in determining whether an
employee is subject to the employer's control." It further
explained that at least with regard to cases involving onsite
employer-controlled activities, the mandatory nature of an activity
is not the only factor to consider. Courts may and should consider
additional relevant factors -- including, but not limited to, the
location of the activity, the degree of the employer's control,
whether the activity primarily benefits the employee or employer,
and whether the activity is enforced through disciplinary measures
-- when evaluating such employer-controlled conduct."
The Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court that Cazares'
first amended complaint fails to state a viable claim for unpaid
wages because it does not allege facts sufficient to show he was
subject to any level of control by Host during the security
checks.
First, Cazares does not dispute that the airport security checks to
which he and putative class members are subject "are mandated by a
federal law," and are administered by a federal body, the
Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"). Despite Cazares'
concession that the security check process is mandated by federal
law and administered by the TSA, Cazares' first amended complaint
does not allege any facts showing that Host exercised any "level of
control" over him and putative class members during the security
check process. Accordingly, Cazares is not entitled to compensable
"hours worked" for time spent during TSA security checks.
Second, Cazares alleges that Host violated his and putative class
members' rights to meal breaks under Cal. Lab. Code Section 512.
The Ninth Circuit holds that he fails to allege facts sufficient to
state such a claim. First, derivative of his unpaid wages claim,
Cazares alleges that, because time spent going through security
should have been treated as "hours worked," his shifts started
earlier than recorded by Host's clock-in procedure, rendering his
meal breaks late. Because Cazares' unpaid wages claim fails so too
does this first purported basis for a meal break violation.
Third, Cazares alleges that he was impermissibly subjected to
on-premises meal breaks because, due to the TSA security process,
he did not have time to leave the airport and return within 30
minutes. Cazares contends that Host violated California law because
the circumstances of his worksite location inside a secured portion
of the Los Angeles International Airport meant that he was not
"free to leave the premises" during his meal break, or, at least,
he was "impeded or discouraged" from doing so by Host.
The Ninth Circuit holds that Cazares' argument fails because it
assumes that the only way Host could satisfy its obligation to
permit him to "leave the premises" of the worksite during his meal
break would be to permit Cazares to leave the secured area of the
airport. The first amended complaint, however, fails to allege any
factual basis for such an assumption.
Fourth, Cazares alleges Host violated his and putative class
members' right to rest periods because "on many occasions" he "had
to spend several minutes walking to the designated rest area" that
resulted in his break being "taken short."
The Ninth Circuit holds that Cazares' claim fails because he does
not allege that (1) he was required to take his rest period at a
particular, remote designated area and (2) there were no other
areas where he or putative class members could take rest periods
that were closer than the designated area. Finally, Cazares does
not point to any authority supporting his assertion that Host was
required and failed to provide him with a designated rest area.
Lastly, Cazares alleges that, by failing to pay full wages for
"hours worked" and depriving him and putative class members of
proper meal and rest breaks, Host violated California law requiring
accurate wage statements, incurred penalties for forcing employees
to wait to receive full wages owed after termination, and violated
California's unfair competition law.
The Ninth Circuit finds that these three claims are derivative of
and dependent on Cazares' unpaid wages, meal break, and rest period
claims. Therefore, these claims fail just as the underlying claims
do.
Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/s6ehn7ke from Leagle.com.
IMPERIAL PARKING: Underpays Parking Lot Attendants, Jacques Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JEAN JUNIOR JACQUES, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action,
Plaintiff v. IMPERIAL PARKING (U.S.), INC., IMPERIAL PARKING
(U.S.), LLC, and IMPARK WATER, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07102 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2021), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or around
January 2014 through and including March 2020 as a parking lot
attendant at the Impark Parking Lots.
The Plaintiff asserts that she and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However,
the Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week, and for one hour's pay at the
basic minimum hourly wage rate for each day his shift exceeded 10
hours. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide them with meal
breaks or rest periods of any length, failed to keep track of their
hours worked, and failed to provide them with a wage statement and
with any notice of their rate of pay and other information, the
Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Corporate Defendants own and operate numerous parking lots and
parking garages throughout North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
JOSH GUILLORY: Laxey-Fogleman Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Josh Guillory, et al.
The case is styled as Tara Laxey-Fogleman, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated consumers v. Josh Guillory, in his
personal and official capacities; mayor-president of the city of
Lafayette comprises the governments of the City of Lafayette,
Louisiana and Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana and is located within
the Western District of Louisiana. Moreover, the Consolidated
Government also includes the Lafayette Police Dept and Sheriffs
Dept; Scott Morgan, in his official capacity; Mark Garber, in his
official capacity; Donald Landry, in his official and personal
capacities; police officer does 1 through 10, in their individual
capacities; Case No. 6:21-cv-03038 (W.D. La., Aug. 27, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute for
the Civil Rights Act.
Josh Guillory --
https://www.lafayettela.gov/mayorpresident/director -- took the
Oath of Office as Lafayette Mayor-President on January 6,
2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan E Snider, Esq.
A C L U of LOUISIANA
1340 Poydras St Ste 2160
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 522-0628
Email: msnider@laaclu.org
JUUL LABS: Adrian School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-06565 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit alleges.
Adrian Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 785 Riverside Avenue in Adrian, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Barron Area Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARRON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06599 (N.D. Cal., August 26, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Barron Area School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 100 West River Avenue in Barron, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Canton School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
CANTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06553 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Canton City School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 305 McKinley Avenue Northwest in Canton, Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Strasburg District Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STRASBURG LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06526 (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Strasburg Local School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 140 North Bodmer Avenue in Strasburg, Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Chester School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHESTER COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06531 (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Chester County Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 970 East Main Street in Henderson, Tennessee.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: DeTour School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
DETOUR AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-06537 (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
DeTour Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 202 South Division in DeTour, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Las Virgenes Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Virgenes Unified School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06597 (N.D. Cal., August 26, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Las Virgenes Unified School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 4111 Las Virgenes Road in Calabasas,
California.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, North Canton School Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH CANTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06532 (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
North Canton City School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 525 7th Street Northeast in North Canton,
Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, West Deptford Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WEST DEPTFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06570 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
West Deptford School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 675 Grove Road in West Deptford, New Jersey.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces San Dieguito Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06524 (N.D. Cal., August
24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
San Dieguito Union High School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 710 Encinitas Boulevard in
Encinitas, California.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Greenville School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREENVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06549 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Greenville Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1414 West Chase Street in Greenville, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Heritage School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HERITAGE SOUTHWEST INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06528 (N.D. Cal.,
August 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Heritage Southwest Intermediate School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 61682 Dailey Road in
Cassopolis, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Higley Unified Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HIGLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06594 (N.D. Cal., August 26, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Higley Unified School District is a school district with its
offices located on South Recker Road in Gilbert, Arizona.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Jose de Jesus Rivera, Esq
MILLER, PITT, FELDMAN & McANALLY, P.C.
2800 North Central Avenue, Ste. 840
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1069
Telephone: (601) 266-5557
Facsimile: (602) 266-2223
E-mail: jrivera@mpfmlaw.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
JUUL LABS: Louisville School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06529 (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Louisville City School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 407 East Main Street in Louisville, Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Capac School Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAPAC COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06552 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit alleges.
Capac Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 541 North Glassford Street in Capac, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Ewen-Trout School Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EWEN-TROUT CREEK SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06534 (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Ewen-Trout Creek School is a unified school district with its
offices located at 14312 Ewen Airport Road in Ewen, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Mount Horeb Area School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOUNT HOREB AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06525 (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Mount Horeb Area School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 1304 East Lincoln Street in Mount Horeb,
Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Osnaburg School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSNABURG LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06550 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Osnaburg Local School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 310 Browning Court in East Canton, Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Prescott School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESCOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06596 (N.D. Cal., August 26, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Prescott School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1220 Saint Croix Street in Prescott, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Southwestern Wis. Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHWESTERN WISCONSIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06522 (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Southwestern Wisconsin School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 1105 Maple Street in Hazel Green,
Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Waunakee School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WAUNAKEE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06569 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Waunakee Community School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 905 Bethel Circle in Waunakee,
Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of October 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Katapult Holdings, Inc. ("Katapult"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KPLT) f/k/a FinServ Acquisition Corp.
("FinServ") securities between December 18, 2020 and August 10,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Katapult investors have until
October 26, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/katapult-holdings-inc/ to
participate.
Katapult claims to be a "next-generation platform for digital and
mobile-first commerce focused on the non-prime consumer," providing
point-of-sale lease-purchase options for non-prime consumers who
cannot access traditional financing products.
On June 9, 2021, Katapult became a public company via business
combination with FinServ, a blank check company formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more businesses.
On August 10, 2021, Katapult issued a press release announcing
disappointing financial results for the second quarter of 2021
including a net loss of $8.1 million, compared to $5.1 million in
net income for the second quarter of 2020. The Company further
disclosed that it "observed meaningful [negative] changes in both
e-commerce retail sales forecasts and consumer spending behavior"
and retracted its full year 2021 guidance, claiming it could not
"accurately predict our consumer's buying behaviors for the
remainder of the year."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.47, or more than
56%, to close at $4.26 per share on August 10, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Katapult was experiencing declining e-commerce
retail sales and consumer spending, (2) that despite Katapult's
assertions that it was clear and compelling value proposition to
both consumers and merchants, transforming the way nonprime
consumers shop for essential goods and enabling merchant access to
this underserved segment, Katapult lacked visibility into its
consumers' future buying behavior; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased Katapult securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than October 26, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Katapult securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
KEN & DANA: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ken & Dana Design,
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Ken & Dana Design, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04820 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ken & Dana Design -- https://shop.kenanddanadesign.com/ -- offers
handmade and custom engagement rings and wedding bands, crafted in
NYC using conflict-free or lab diamonds and recycled metals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
LEMONADE INC: Faces Class Suit in New York Over Biometrics' Use
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather A. Turner, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that
the artificial intelligence-powered technology Lemonade has touted
as being a gamechanger for the insurance industry is putting the
internet insurer in hot water once again.
On August 20, Lemonade was hit with a privacy class action lawsuit
(Pruden v. Lemonade, Inc., et al.) in the New York Southern
District Court over its alleged collection and use of biometric
data. The suit claims that Lemonade collects and stores customers'
retina scans, voice prints, and face scans without their knowledge
or consent when they upload videos during the claim submission
process. During this process, Lemonade's AI chatbot analyzes the
submitted videos for fraud to "pick up non-verbal cues that
traditional insurers can't."
That practice was revealed in May 2021 when the insurer faced
public uproar over its use of AI and the possibility of
discrimination based on race and other traits because of biases
introduced by the people who program and implement it. In a
statement at the time, Lemonade assured consumers that its facial
recognition technology is used to flag claims submitted by the same
person under different identities and that claimants are not
"treated differently based on their appearance, behavior, or any
personal/physical characteristic."
However, that admission opened the gate for privacy violation
claims, as cited in the new lawsuit. "Lemonade readily admits that
it is critically dependent on its ability to collect consumer data,
which Lemonade uses to train its AI and create algorithms allowing
Lemonade to predict and monetize consumer behavior," the complaint
notes.
The suit also claims that the company "expressly and impliedly
assured" clients that it would not collect, require, sell or share
biometric data. "The unsuspecting consumers, including plaintiff
and the class members, fell for these promises in relying on
Lemonade's guarantees to their detriment," adds the complaint.
Lemonade did not return a request for comment.
Biometric data has been the center of controversy over privacy
concerns and risks associated with misuse and theft. According to
the Lemonade suit, surveys show that consumers are more sensitive
about biometric data than other categories of personal information,
with less than 10% of consumers willingly give up their biometrics
in exchange for shopping for online products and services in 2018.
[GN]
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Dismissal of Nitkewicz Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
order of dismissal of the Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life &
Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), has been appealed.
Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York
(LLANY), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action
that was filed on August 24, 2020.
Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust,
seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which
planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for
any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured's
death.
Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in
violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in
connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain
insurance policies.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on
behalf of the various classes and sub-class.
On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice, LLANY's
November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter.
On July 28, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect
to this ruling.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v LLANY Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
class action suit entitled, Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life
& Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), is still ongoing.
Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019.
Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of
universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own
or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest
that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policies.
Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York." Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder
class and sub-class.
Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LYFT INC: Fails to Reimburse Expenses & Pay Wages, Chandra Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IRWAN CHANDRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LYFT INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07113
(S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2021) is a class action complaint brought by
the Plaintiff seeking to recover unpaid wages as a result of the
Defendant's alleged violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a driver from January
23, 2018 until August 28, 2019.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers as independent
contractors. The Defendant does not reimburse them for any
necessary expenses they incur while working for the Defendant. As a
result, the Defendant failed to compensate them at the applicable
minimum wage for all hours worked, particularly after accounting
for their expenses and other deductions taken from their pay. In
addition, the Defendant deprived them of the appropriate overtime
premium at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to keep and maintain accurate
records of their hours worked, failed to provide them with accurate
wage statements and with a written notice, says the suit.
Lyft, Inc. is a car service that provides transportation to its
customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Anne Kramer, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
akramer@llrlaw.com
MAPLEBEAR INC: Chambers Seeks Unpaid Wages & Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAPLEBEAR, INC. (d/b/a INSTACART),
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07114 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2021)
brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver since
November 12, 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant misclassified him and other
drivers as "independent contractors." The Defendant purportedly
failed to reimburse them and improperly required them to bear the
expenses of their employment. The Defendant also failed to
compensate them the full New York minimum wage for all hours
worked, and failed to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed
to keep and maintain accurate records of their hours worked, failed
to provide them with accurate wage statements and with a written
notice, says the Plaintiff.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated drivers, the
Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages, reimbursement of expenses, and
liquidated damages, as well as prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart provides on-demand grocery shopping
and grocery delivery services through a mobile phone application
and website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Anne Kramer, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
akramer@llrlaw.com
MARIANI PACKAGING: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Lodahl Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trenton Lodahl, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mariani Packaging Co., Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-00540 (W.D. Wis., August 24, 2021), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, compensation for missed breaks, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.
Mariani Packaging is a privately-owned company that provides
packing services. Lodahl worked as a maintenance technician at
Mariani's Wisconsin Rapids production facility. Lodahl claims to
have worked through his meal breaks despite "clocking out" during
this period. He also seeks compensation for each hour worked in
excess of forty hours each workweek. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
MDL 2543: Class Counsel Will Be Given Unredacted Copies of Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION,
Case No. 14-MD-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will
provide unredacted copies of a letter from an alleged member of the
settlement class to the Co-Lead Counsel.
The Court has received a letter, with personal identifying
information redacted, from an alleged member of the settlement
class raising concerns about the class action settlement
administrator.
Judge Furman will provide unredacted copies of the same to the
Co-Lead Counsel. The Co-Lead Counsel will promptly take steps to
address the class member's concerns and will file a letter updating
the Court on such efforts within 30 days. The Co-Lead Counsel will
serve a copy of the Order on the class member at the email address
provided.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ypdstr8a from Leagle.com.
MEDTRONIC INC: Le FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lane Le, individually and on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Medtronic, Inc., a Minnesota
Corporation; Covidien, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; Does
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02040, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Aug. 27,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-01933-JRT-HB to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Medtronic -- https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/ -- is a global leader
in medical technology, services, and solutions.[BN]
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Fuel Odor Class Lawsuit Heads to Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit
alleges owners of 2015-2019 C-Class vehicles (W205) must cope with
gas smells that arise from leaking fuel.
The plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit alleges fuel leaks from the
fuel line connections to the fuel pumps.
One plaintiff who owns a 2016 Mercedes C300 alleges replacing three
components cost him more than $500.
According to the plaintiffs, the gas smells decrease vehicle values
and cause owners to pay a lot of their own money for repairs and
replacement parts.
The Mercedes class action says fuel wouldn't leak and occupants
wouldn't have to inhale fuel odors if the fuel pump connectors
didn't leak where the low-pressure hose connects to the
high-pressure fuel pump.
Mercedes-Benz has allegedly concealed the fuel leak problems even
with C-Class owners complaining about fuel smells inside the
vehicles.
Customers complain about fuel odors coming from the engine
compartments and Mercedes dealers typically diagnose the problem as
a leaking fuel hose or connector.
Motion to Dismiss the Mercedes Class Action Lawsuit
Mercedes-Benz filed a motion to dismiss the C-Class fuel leak
lawsuit and the judge responded by ordering the plaintiffs to
mediation with the automaker.
In an August 25 order from Judge William M. Ray, II, he stayed the
class action lawsuit for six months and ordered the plaintiffs and
Mercedes to mediate the case.
The judge says the parties are also ordered to talk about a fuel
hose warranty extension that directly relates to the same
components and problem named in the lawsuit.
According to the warranty extension, the original
4-year/50,000-mile fuel hose warranty has been increased to 10
years or 120,000 miles. The judge says Mercedes and the plaintiff
should decide if the warranty extension resolves the plaintiff's
claims.
The Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division: Rosen, et al., vs. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, and
Sauder Schelkopf. [GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Smith Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.2:21-cv-03718
(E.D. Pa., August 20, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged willful and negligent
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Synchrony Bank
primarily for personal, family or household purposes.
According to the complaint, Synchrony Bank sold the alleged debt to
Defendant Midland Funding, who contracted Defendant MCM to collect
the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about June 14, 2021, Defendant
MCM sent the Plaintiff a collection letter stating a current
balance of $2,498.00 and provided three payment options. However,
the Plaintiff was confused by the letter because it failed to
explain clearly the Option 3 whether it is a settlement option or a
full pay option. The Plaintiff was therefore unable to evaluate her
options of how to handle the alleged debt, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged deceptive, misleading and
false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged.
The Corporate Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 326-9179
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
MISSION BAY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Alvarado Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS ALVARADO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, Plaintiff v.
MISSION BAY MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00035853-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 20, 2021) brings
this complaint to challenge the Defendants' alleged systemic
employment practices that violated the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt safety officer from in or about June 2020 until in or
about April 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant deprived him of his rights
guaranteed by the Labor Code by failing to timely pay his wages.
The Defendant paid him very two weeks, but he was not paid his
wages earned during biweekly pay periods until more than seven days
after the end of the pay periods. Specifically, the wage he earned
during the pay period of August 28, 2020 through September 10, 2020
were not paid until September 18, 2020, which is more than seven
days after the end of the pay period, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks recovery of all applicable penalties for the
Defendants' violations against all aggrieved employees, including
litigation costs and attorneys' fees, and other relief that the
Court may deem just and proper.
Mission Bay Management, LLC operates waterfront properties that
offer spectacular ocean or bay views. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Simon L. Yang, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 South Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
sly@diversitylaw.com
- and –
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP
501 San Benito St., Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Tel: (831) 531-4214
Fax: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
MOD SUPER FAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA CALIFORNIA
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21
CV386055 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 20, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Plaintiff Gutierrez was employed by the Defendant as staff.
MOD Super Fast Pizza Holdings, LLC owns and operates chain of
restaurants. The Company offers wide range of food products, such
as pizza, salads, sides, and beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
-and-
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
NEC CORP: Price-Fixing Class Action Settlement Notable, Lawyer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Quebec
have approved $21.3 million in settlement funds for the Canadian
lithium-ion batteries price-fixing class action and a protocol for
the distribution of such funds.
Siskinds LLP, based in Ontario and Quebec; Camp Fiorante Matthews
Mogerman LLP, a boutique firm in Vancouver; Belleau Lapointe,
s.e.n.c.r.l., a boutique firm in Montreal; and Sotos LLP in Toronto
acted as class counsel in the class proceeding initiated in 2013,
which alleged price-fixing in the market for lithium-ion batteries
(LIBs) and certain products containing LIBs in Canada.
Individuals who bought LIBs or LIB products in Canada between Jan.
1, 2000 and Jan. 1, 2012 may claim settlement benefits, including
for undocumented purchases, said a news release announcing approval
of the protocol. The settled defendants did not admit wrongdoing or
liability.
This class proceeding is notable because it sheds light on who can
assert a claim in a price-fixing conspiracy case and which claims
they can bring, says Linda Visser, a partner in the class action
department of Siskinds LLP. The case ensures that all those
affected by an unlawful conspiracy can make a claim, which in turn
promotes access to justice, she adds.
The class action dealt with unsettled legal issues on its
certification motion, Visser says, with the first being whether
umbrella purchasers, or those who bought the batteries directly or
indirectly from a non-defendant manufacturer, have a cause of
action in the price-fixing conspiracy case.
The plaintiffs submitted that, because the defendants controlled
the market and generally drove up market prices, all buyers of the
relevant product were affected by the defendants' wrongful conduct.
The Superior Court and the Divisional Court disagreed with the
plaintiffs' theory, but the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned this
decision. The defendants were then denied leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Another highly contested issue was whether the Competition Act is a
complete code, such that breaching it cannot be the basis for a
common law claim for tort of unlawful conspiracy. This issue was
significant because it determined the remedies available to the
class, Visser explains. For example, punitive damages are only
available at common law.
The Superior Court again ruled against the plaintiffs, who then
succeeded on appeal to the Divisional Court. In Pioneer Corp. v.
Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was
favourable to the plaintiff, represented by Siskinds and by Camp
Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, on all issues, including in relation to
the Competition Act.
The class action was also novel because, three years after the
litigation was initiated by a firm that took limited steps pursuing
the claims, Option consommateurs, represented by Belleau Lapointe,
filed a successful application which replaced the counsel of record
and which made it the representative plaintiff, Visser says. She
notes that the general rule in Quebec is for courts to determine
the issue of carriage based on the first-to-file rule, absent
exceptional circumstances.
Visser also expects that, following this case, coordinated
discovery among multiple jurisdictions, which may promote lower
costs and greater efficiencies in class actions brought in more
than one province, will become more common. In turn, this may give
rise to challenges as parties and courts grapple with different
discovery rules.
"At the time of settlement with the last defendants, the parties
were in the discovery phase," Visser says. "This case explored
possible means of coordinating discovery between the Ontario and
Quebec actions."
Lastly, Visser stresses that a user-friendly claims process is key
to advancing access to justice.
"Consistent with other recent distributions, counsel have sought to
develop a claims process that is user friendly and reflects that
some class members will not have retained proof of purchase," she
says. "At the same time, the claims administrator is required to
implement fraud control measures to prevent duplicative or
fraudulent claims."
Settlements were reached with the following groups of Defendants:
Defendants Settlement Amount
NEC Corporation and NEC Tokin Corporation CDN $50,000.00
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc. USD
$2,200,000.00
Sony Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Sony
Electronics, Inc., and Sony of Canada Ltd. CDN $4,500,000.00
LG Chem, Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. USD $3,900,000.00
Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.,
and Toshiba of Canada Limited CDN $264,759.67
Maxell Holdings, Ltd. and Maxell Corporation of America USD
$300,000.00
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Panasonic Canada Inc., and Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. USD
$6,295,000.00 [GN]
NEW DICKSON TRADING: Liu Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jun Lin Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New Dickson Trading, LLC, and
Nan Sheng Jiang, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-15779 (D. N.J., August
20, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law including monetary damages
and other relief.
Defendants operate a shipping and delivery business located in
Linden, New Jersey where Liu was hired as a delivery driver, from
July 14, 2018, to June 8, 2021. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Qinyu Fan, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Tel: (718)353-8588
Fax: (718) 353-6288
Email: qfan@hanglaw.com
NORDSTROM INC: Harris Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nordstrom, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Christine Harris, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers v. Nordstrom, Inc., TD
Bank USA, Case No. 2:21-cv-04839 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Nordstrom, Inc. -- https://www.nordstrom.com/ -- is a leading
fashion retailer offering compelling clothing, shoes and
accessories for men, women and kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS INC: Faces Kang Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUEI-TING KANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC.; DANIEL H. SCHULMAN;
and JOHN D. RAINEY, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06468 (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 20, 2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal securities between
February 9, 2017 and July 28, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Allegedly,
the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) PayPal had deficient disclosure controls and
procedures; (ii) as a result, PayPal's business practices with
respect to PayPal Credit remained non-compliant with applicable
laws and regulations; (iii) PayPal's practices regarding payment of
interchange rates related to its debit cards were likewise
non-compliant with applicable laws and regulations; (iv)
accordingly, PayPal's revenues derived from its PayPal Credit and
debit card practices were in part the subject of improper conduct
and thus unsustainable; (v) all the foregoing subjected the Company
to an increased risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement;
and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 29, 2021, PayPal filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with
the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating results
for the second quarter of 2021. In its quarterly report, PayPal
disclosed investigations by the SEC and the CFPB. Specifically,
PayPal disclosed receipt of a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID")
from the CFPB related "to the marketing and use of PayPal Credit in
connection with certain merchants that provide educational
services"; and that the Company has "responded to subpoenas and
requests for information received from the [SEC] relating to
whether the interchange rates paid to the bank that issues debit
cards bearing our licensed brands were consistent with Regulation
II of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to
the reporting of marketing fees earned from the Company's branded
card program."
On this news, PayPal's stock price fell $18.81 per share, or 6.23%,
to close at $283.17 per share on July 29, 2021. As a result of
Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a technology platform company
that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and
merchants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
-and-
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
POSTAL FLEET: Gaugh FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEBBIE GAUGH and ZAN KIRBY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. POSTAL FLEET SERVICES,
INC., THE STAGELINE COMPANY, VILANO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.,
LESLIE DON DORRIS, BRENDA DORRIS, and CRAIG R. GREGORY, Case No.
2:21-cv-02419, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on August 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-00829-BJD-JBT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract and
failure to pay appropriate minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Postal Fleet Services, Inc. is a transportation services provider,
with its corporate headquarters located at 2808 5th Street N, Suite
501, Saint Augustine, Florida.
The Stageline Company is a transportation services provider, with
its corporate headquarters located at 2808 5th Street N, Suite 501,
Saint Augustine, Florida.
Vilano Employment Services, Inc. is a transportation services
provider, with its corporate headquarters located at 2808 5th
Street N, Suite 501, Saint Augustine, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
- and –
Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
101 N. Highland Ave.
P.O. Box 266
Jackson, TN 38302
Telephone: (731) 423-5565
Facsimile: (731) 423-5450
E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com
SAFE STREETS: Class Settlement in Jones Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL JONES AND MARK FITZHENRY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. SAFE STREETS USA
LLC and TEKTIKS INNOVATIVE NETWORK USA INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00394-BO (E.D.N.C.), Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western
Division, grants the motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement filed in the Action, including the Class Action
Settlement Agreement and Release.
Judge Boyle preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the
terms and conditions set forth therein, subject to further
consideration at the Final Approval Hearing.
The Settlement Agreement, including the Long-Form Notice, Postcard
Notice, Publication Notice, and Claim Form attached to the
Settlement Agreement as Exhibits 2-5 are preliminarily approved.
EPIQ is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. Defendant Safe
Streets and the Settlement Administrator will notify Settlement
Class Members of the settlement in the manner specified under
Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement.
To be eligible to receive an award, subject to the review process
for Claims pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Settlement Agreement, the
Settlement Class Members must submit a timely and valid Claim Form
to the Settlement Administrator no later than 75 calendar days
after the entry of the Order.
Any Settlement Class Member who has not submitted a timely written
request for exclusion and who wishes to object to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, the Fees,
Costs, and Expenses Award, or the Service Payments must deliver
written objections to the Settlement Administrator or the Court by
postal mail and postmarked no later than 75 calendar days after the
entry of the Order.
Settlement Class Members may elect not to be part of the settlement
and not to be bound by the Settlement Agreement. Individual
requests for exclusion may be submitted to the Settlement
Administrator electronically (through the Settlement Website) or by
postal mail, but if submitted by postal mail, each Settlement Class
Member must pay for postage. No mass opt-outs are allowed. A
request for exclusion must be submitted no later than 75 calendar
days after entry of the Order.
The Settlement Class is provisionally certified as a class of: "All
persons in the United States that Safe Streets USA LLC, Acquity,
LLC, Perfectvision Manufacturing Inc., Tektiks Innovative Network
USA Inc., Simple Home 360 Inc., MWT & S Biz, LLC and/or their
respective subcontractors (hereinafter the Parties) called from May
10, 2015 through the date of the preliminary approval order and (1)
received a telemarketing and/or pre-recorded voice message Call,
(2) made by or on behalf of Safe Streets USA LLC and (3) regarding
ADT home security services."
Plaintiffs Stewart Abramson, Paul Jones and Mark Fitzhenry are
conditionally certified as the class representatives to implement
the Parties' settlement in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement. The law firms of Paronich Law, P.C. and Kaufman PA are
conditionally appointed as the Settlement Class Counsel. The
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Counsel must fairly and
adequately protect Settlement Class Members' interests.
Judge Boyle orders that any actions or proceedings in any court in
the United States involving any Released Claims asserted by any
Releasing Parties and/or the Plaintiffs' General Release, except
any matters necessary to implement, advance, or further the
approval of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed pending the Final
Approval Hearing and issuance of any Final Approval Order and Final
Judgment.
In the event that the Settlement Agreement is voided, terminated,
or cancelled, or fails to become effective for any reason
whatsoever, then the Parties will be deemed to have reverted to
their respective statuses as of the date and time immediately prior
to the execution of this Settlement Agreement, and they will
proceed in all respects as if the Settlement Agreement and any
related orders had never been executed or accepted.
Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or the Order is, or may be
construed as, an admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability
by any Party or on any point of fact or law by or against any
Party.
The counsel for the Parties are authorized to utilize all
reasonable procedures in connection with the administration of the
settlement which are not materially inconsistent with either this
Order or the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Parties may
further modify the Settlement Agreement prior to the Final Approval
Hearing so long as such modifications do not materially change the
terms of the settlement provided therein. The Court may approve the
Settlement Agreement with such modifications as may be agreed to by
the Parties, if appropriate, without further notice to the
Settlement Class Members.
On Jan. 12, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., the Court will hold a Final
Approval Hearing. The Plaintiffs' motion in support of the Final
Approval Order and Final Judgment will be filed 14 calendar days
before the Final Approval Hearing.
The Settlement Agreement and the Order provide for the following
dates and deadlines related to the provision of notice and the
Final Approval Hearing:
a. Last day for the Settlement Administrator to publish the
Settlement Website and begin operating a toll-free telephone
number, email address, and post office box to accept inquiries from
Settlement Class Members - 30 calendar days after entry of the
Order
b. Settlement Administrator begins providing notice to
Settlement Class Members - On or before 30 calendar days after
entry of the Order
c. Last day for Settlement Class Members to submit Claim
Forms, object, or request exclusion from the Settlement - 75
calendar days after entry of the Order
d. Last day for Settlement Class Counsel to file motion in
support of Final Approval Order and Final Judgment - 14 calendar
days before Final Approval Hearing
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wk7cwvh from Leagle.com.
SAPPI NORTH: Saunders Product Liability Suit Removed to D. Maine
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NATHAN SAUNDERS and JUDY HOOK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAPPI NORTH AMERICA,
INC. F/K/A S.D. WARREN COMPANY, S.D. WARREN COMPANY, SAPPI LTD.,
SCOTT PAPER COMPANY, KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, UPM-KYMMENE, INC.,
NORTHERN SC PAPER CORPORATION, PERRY VIDEX, LLC, INFINITY ASSET
SOLUTIONS, NEW MILL CAPITAL LLC, GO LAB, INC., HUHTAMAKI OYJ,
HUHTAMAKI, INC., INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, VERSO CORPORATION,
PIXELLE SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS, and PINE TREE WASTE, INC. D/B/A
CENTRAL MAINE DISPOSAL, Case No. CV-2021-19, was removed from the
Superior Court in the Town of Skowhegan, County of Somerset, State
of Maine, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on
August 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Maine assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00245-NT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged discharge,
distribution, and/or spraying of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), which resulted to personal property damage.
Sappi North America, Inc., formerly known as S.D. Warren Company,
is a manufacturer of paper products, headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
S.D. Warren Company is a paper mill company based in Maine.
Sappi Ltd. is a pulp and paper company in South Africa.
Scott Paper Company is a manufacturer and marketer of sanitary
tissue products, headquartered in Pennsylvania.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a manufacturer of paper-based
consumer products, headquartered in Irving, Texas.
UPM-Kymmene, Inc. is a provider of paper products, headquartered in
Naperville, Illinois.
Northern SC Paper Corporation is a paper company in the U.S.
Perry Videx, LLC is an equipment supplier in Hainesport, New
Jersey.
Infinity Asset Solutions is an auction house in Ontario.
New Mill Capital LLC is a national asset disposition firm in
Michigan.
Go Lab, Inc. is a building products company based in Maine.
Huhtamaki Oyj is a global food packaging specialist, headquartered
in Espoo, Finland.
Huhtamaki, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaging products based in
Kansas.
International Paper Company is an American pulp and paper company,
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.
Verso Corporation is a paper mill company based in Ohio.
Pixelle Specialty Solutions is a manufacturer of specialty papers
in North America.
Pine Tree Waste, Inc., doing business as Central Maine Disposal, is
a waste management company based in Maine. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John J. Aromando, Esq.
Nolan L. Reichl, Esq.
Sara A. Murphy, Esq.
PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
Merrill's Wharf
254 Commercial Street
Portland, ME 04101
Telephone: (207) 791-1100
E-mail: jaromando@pierceatwood.com
nreichl@pierceatwood.com
smurphy@pierceatwwod.com
SCIPLAY CORP: Class Status Bid in NY Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion for class
certification in the consolidated putative class action suit in New
York, is pending.
On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St.
Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state
court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and
SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering
(the "PRS Action").
The complaint was amended on November 18, 2019. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired Class
A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement filed and issued in connection with
SciPlay's initial public offering, which commenced on or about May
3, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at
least $146.0 million, and the award of the plaintiff's and the
class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.
On or about December 9, 2019, Hongwei Li filed a putative class
action complaint in New York state court asserting substantively
similar causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and
substantially similar factual allegations as those alleged in the
PRS Action (the "Li Action").
On December 18, 2019, the New York state court entered a stipulated
order consolidating the PRS Action and the Li Action into a single
lawsuit.
On December 23, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated action.
On August 28, 2020, the court issued an oral ruling granting in
part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
motion to certify the putative class. That motion is not yet
fully-briefed.
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SCIPLAY CORP: Good Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the putative class
action suit initiated by John Good, remains stayed.
On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative
class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay,
certain of its executives and directors, Scientific Games
Corporation (SGC), and SciPlay's underwriters with respect to
SciPlay's initial public offering.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to
SciPlay's initial public offering that it completed on or about May
7, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the
award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.
On February 27, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that, among other things, stayed the lawsuit pending entry of an
order resolving the motion to dismiss that was pending in the
SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.
On September 29, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that extended the stay pending a ruling on class certification in
the SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SELECTQUOTE INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Aug. 26
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of
investors of SelectQuote, Inc. ("SelectQuote" or the "Company")
(NYSE: SLQT). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased SelectQuote between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no
later than October 15, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that SelectQuote's 2019 cohort was underperforming; (2) that,
as a result, the Company's financial results would be adversely
impacted; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the SelectQuote class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the SelectQuote class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.
If you are a SelectQuote shareholder and have losses and are
interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please
contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
SIERRA CIRCUITS: Munoz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
Alejandro Munoz, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sierra
Circuits, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21CV386080, (Cal. Super.,
August 20, 2021), seeks monetary damages and restitution,
penalties/premium pay for missed meal and rest periods, restitution
and restoration of sums owed and property unlawfully withheld,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, payment of final wages
upon termination, statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive
relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under California labor
code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.
Sierra Circuits employed Munoz as an hourly-paid or non-exempt
employee at its Santa Clara facility from 2016 to 2020. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Josh B. Tran, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the consolidated putative class action suit before the Northern
District of Illinois court.
The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company following published reports of
the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the exchange of
pacing data within the industry.
On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois.
The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other
broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on
broadcast television stations throughout the United States and
engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against
adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the
ways the plaintiffs have alleged.
The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on November 6,
2020.
Since then, the Plaintiffs have served the Defendants with written
discovery requests, and the Court has set a pretrial schedule
requiring discovery to be completed by July 1, 2022, and briefing
on class certification to be completed by November 14, 2022.
The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against all such claims.
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ciccio Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ciccio, et al. v.
SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.).
In September 2019, a putative class action on behalf of a consumer
and three orthodontists was brought against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio, et al.
v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D.
Tenn.).
The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, false
advertising under the Lanham Act, common law fraud, and various
state consumer protection statutes relating to the Company's
advertising.
Following a proactive voluntary dismissal by the majority of
consumer plaintiffs, one consumer has since sought to rejoin the
Middle District of Tennessee litigation or, in the alternative, to
intervene, which the Court granted. That ruling has been appealed,
and the Court has stayed the consumer claims pending the appeal.
Litigation is in the pleading stage and discovery as to the
purported provider class has commenced.
A preliminary Case Management Order has been entered setting trial
for some time in March 2022.
The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to defend
against this action vigorously.
SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which includes marketing, aligner
manufacturing, fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring
through completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state-licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Settlement in Benbow Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement in Stacy
Benbow et al. v. SmileDirectClub, Inc. et al., 2020 CH 07269, has
been granted final approval.
In December 2020, a class action complaint was filed in the
Illinois state court: Stacy Benbow et al. v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.
et al., 2020 CH 07269 (Cook County Circuit Court filed 12/14/20).
The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and seeks to represent a nationwide class of
similarly situated persons. The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
A tentative settlement has been approved by the court and the
Company has recorded an estimated loss of $4,800 related to such
tentative settlement; however, additional court proceedings are
necessary before the settlement is finalized.
Notice to the class was sent on March 20, 2021, and final approval
was set for May 19, 2021.
On May 19, 2021, the final approval was granted by the Cook County
Circuit Court.
SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which includes marketing, aligner
manufacturing, fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring
through completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state-licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Monahan Files Suit in W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Airlines
Company. The case is styled as Christine Monahan, Lillian Taylor,
Renee Iannotti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Airlines Company, Case No.
6:21-cv-00887-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., Aug. 26, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Southwest Airlines Co., typically referred to as Southwest --
https://www.southwest.com/ -- is one of the major airlines of the
United States and the world's largest low-cost carrier
airline.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen Leigh Nelson, Esq.
HECHT PARTNERS LLP
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (646) 490-2408
Fax: (646) 492-5111
Email: knelson@hechtpartners.com
SPICE CREAMERY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spice Creamery LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Spice Creamery LLC doing
business as: Marco, Case No. 1:21-cv-07236 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Marco Sweets & Spices -- https://www.marcoicecream.com/ -- is a new
frozen treat company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SURRATT COSMETICS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Surratt Cosmetics,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Surratt
Cosmetics, LLC, Surratt Beauty, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-07204
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Surratt -- https://www.surrattbeauty.com/ -- creates luxurious
makeup that is customizable, refillable, and easy to use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
T-MOBILE USA: Schupler Files Suit in W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA Inc. The
case is styled as Stuart Schupler, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01161 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 26, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
T-Mobile US, Inc., doing business under the global brand name
T-Mobile -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless
network operator.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq.
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
19929 BALLINGER WAY NE, STE 200
SEATTLE, WA 98155
Phone: (206) 621-6566
Email: dturner@badgleymullins.com
TEGNA INC: Consolidated Massey Suit Over Ad Rates Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Tegna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated putative class action suit entitled, Clay, Massey &
Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et. al.
Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action
lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the
Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions.
Plaintiffs are a class consisting of all persons and entities in
the United States who paid for all or a portion of advertisement
time on local television provided by the defendants.
The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as
injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct.
These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc.
et. al., filed on July 30, 2018. At the court's direction,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2019, that
superseded the original complaints. Although we were named as a
defendant in sixteen of the original complaints, the amended
complaint did not name TEGNA as a defendant.
After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into consent
decrees with the DOJ in June 2019, the plaintiffs sought leave from
the court to further amend the complaint to add TEGNA and the other
settling broadcasters to the proceeding.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed
the second amended complaint on September 9, 2019.
On October 8, 2019, the defendants jointly filed a motion to
dismiss the matter. On November 6, 2020, the court denied the
motion to dismiss.
Tegna said, "We deny any violation of law, believe that the claims
asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit, and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously against them."
Tegna Inc., incorporated on February 23, 1972, is a media company.
The Company provides stories, investigations and marketing
services. It operates 47 television stations in 39 United States
markets and owns four network affiliates. It also provides services
to advertisers through solutions, including its over the top (OTT)
local advertising network, Premion.
TEXLEY INC: Leone Slams Tip Credit, Seeks Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Leone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Texley Incorporated and Afshin Minooe,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02773, (S.D. Tex., August 24, 2021),
seeks damages, backpay, restitution, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs and all other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendants operate as "Glamour Girls Cabaret," an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located in Houston, Texas where Leone worked
as an exotic dancer. She was compensated exclusively through tips
from customers and did not receive payment for any hours worked at
their establishment. However, she was required to share their tips
with other non-service employees who do not customarily receive
tips, including the managers, disc jockeys, and the bouncers thus
rendering her pay to fall below the mandated minimum wage rate. She
was also denied overtime and wage statements and was required to
pay at least $35 in "house fees" to the club in order to work each
shift, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Ghazzaleh Rezazadeh, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
ghazzaleh@ellzeylaw.com
TRUGREEN INC: Loera Employment Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADAM LOERA and MIGUEL DIAZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUGREEN, INC.; TRUGREEN
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
34-2021-00304557, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on August 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01536-MCE-KJN 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 overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.
TruGreen, Inc. is a provider of building maintenance services,
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.
TruGreen Limited Partnership is a landscaping services company,
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert Yonowitz, Esq.
Kristina Noel Buan, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-2424
Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
E-mail: ryonowitz@fisherphillips.com
kbuan@fisherphillips.com
TWITTER INC: Huber Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled COLLEEN HUBER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JOSEPH BIDEN, JR., in his official
capacity as President of the United States of America; TWITTER,
INC.; JACK DORSEY, in his official capacity as Chief Executive
Officer of Twitter and in his individual capacity; and JOHN DOE(S),
in their official capacity as officials in the White House and in
their individual capacities, Case No. 2:21-cv-00936, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on August 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-06580-JSC to the proceeding.
In this class action, the Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, declaratory
and injunctive relief, declaring unconstitutional and enjoining
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which permits
Defendants Dorsey and Twitter to engage in government-sanctioned
discrimination and the suppression of free speech.
Twitter, Inc. is a social media platform company, with its
principal office in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yerushalmi, Esq.
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
123 West Chandler Heights Road
No. 11277
Chandler, AZ 85248
Facsimile: (801) 760-3901
Telephone: (646) 262-0500
E-mail: dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over No-Solicitation Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Bertram, Esq., of Bertram LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that in a recent post, the law firm highlighted two recent
criminal cases brought by the Department of Justice. One of those
cases is back in the news as a consequence of a civil class action.
United Healthcare, one of the companies the DOJ claimed entered
into an illegal no-solicitation agreement with Surgical Care
Affiliates, is now being sued in a civil action over the same
activity.
In Spradling v. Surgical Care Affiliates, L.L.C. et al., Civ. No.
1:21-cv-01324 (E.D. Ill.), filed March 9, 2021, the employer is
accused of violating the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The named
plaintiff accuses the companies of entering into a no-poach
agreement with the intent and purpose of depressing salaries no
later than 2010 and into 2017. The complaint alleges that by
agreeing not to poach or hire senior-level employees, the
defendants reduced competition, which in turn suppressed the
salaries for these senior-level employees.
The plaintiffs also complain that the defendants' actions "denied"
otherwise capable senior-level employees "access to job
opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived them of
significant information that they could use to negotiate for better
compensation and terms of employment." According to the complaint,
the companies entered into this no-poach agreement to maximize
their profits.
Relying heavily on the indictment in the Texas criminal case, the
complaint alleges that the following should comprise the class:
All natural persons who worked in senior-level positions in the
United States for one or more of the following: (a) from May 1,
2010, to October 31, 2017, for Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC or one
of its subsidiary outpatient medical care facilities; (b) from May
1, 2010, to October 31, 2017, for United Surgical Partners Holding
Company, Inc., United Surgical Partners International, Inc. or one
of its subsidiary outpatient medical care facilities; or (c) from
February 1, 2012, to July 31, 2017, for Company B, or one of its
subsidiary. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Guerrero Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MIGUEL GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00019113-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on August 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01502-GPC-JLB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to maintain itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay
wages upon separation, and failure to reimburse expenses.
United States Gypsum Company is an American company which
manufactures construction materials, headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tracey Kennedy, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com
- and –
Babak Yousefzadeh, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: (415) 434-9100
Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
E-mail: byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com
- and –
Robert K. Foster, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130-4082
Telephone: (858) 720-8900
Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
E-mail: rfoster@sheppardmullin.com
UPSTEP LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upstep, LLC. The case
is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Upstep, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04850 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Upstep -- https://app.upstep.com/ -- is specializing in the design
and manufacture of quality custom orthotics and foot care
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
VELODYNE LIDAR: Tentative Pact Reached in CA Employment Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in in the
class action suit related to pay minimum and overtime wages, final
wages at termination, reached a tentative settlement, subject to
court approval, whereby the Company will pay $0.8 million.
On June 8, 2020, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California.
The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed
to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and
other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks.
The plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated plaintiffs who have not been identified
and is seeking to certify the action as a class action.
The plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint that adds a
claim pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General Act.
The First Amended Complaint does not specify the amount the
plaintiff seeks to recover.
Velodyne's response to the First Amended Complaint was filed on
November 16, 2020 and the parties are in the process of beginning
discovery concerning class certification issues.
On August 5, 2021, the parties reached a tentative settlement,
subject to court approval, whereby the Company will pay $0.8
million.
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.
VERMONT: Deprives Investors of Constitutional Rights, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FATIME ABDEL-FAKHARA, MAURICIO ESTEBAN GARCIA GIRALDO, SYLVANA
CARNEIRO HETKA, HRH LINUS NTO MBAH, PAULINA FUENTES MOAD, LINH THI
THUY PHAM, and TONGYI WANG, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE STATE OF VERMONT, DAVID
CASSETTY, SUSAN DONEGAN, EUGENE FULLAM, WILLIAM GRIFFIN, JOHN
KESSLER, PATRICIA MOULTON, MICHAEL PIECIAK, and JOHN/JANE DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00198-gwc (D. Vt., August 24,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for conspiracy,
gross negligence, and violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to deprive QBurke
investors of their constitutional rights. The Defendants worked
together with full knowledge that the QBurke investor money was
being raised and spent for no legitimate investment interest, with
the only interest lying in the payments to contractors and the
construction of a Vermont based hotel. The State of Vermont
controlled the Jay Peak investment raises and flow of funds
throughout the tenure of the Jay Peak Projects through the Vermont
Regional Center (VRC). Further, the VRC approved the AncBio's
Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) despite its failure to disclose
to investors all material facts. The PPM failed to disclose that
the Jay Peak projects were a Ponzi scheme, says the suit.
The State of Vermont is a state in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Barr, Esq.
Chandler W. Matson, Esq.
BARR LAW GROUP
125 Mountain Road
Stowe, VT 05672
Telephone: (802) 253-6272
Facsimile: (802) 253-6055
E-mail: russ@barrlaw.com
chandler@barrlaw.com
VERSAILLES GARDENS: Fla. Dist. App. Flips Dismissal of Lacayo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Christian Lacayo, Appellant v. Versailles Gardens I
Condominium Association, Inc., Appellee, Case No. 3D20-1918 (Fla.
Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third
District reversed the trial court's order dismissing Mr. Lacayo's
case with prejudice.
Mr. Lacayo had his car immobilized by Dade Booting, LLC, while
parked in Versailles Gardens' complex. Upon discovering this,
Lacayo paid Dade Booting to have the boot removed from his
vehicle.
Mr. Lacayo then filed suit against Versailles Gardens pursuant to
the Miami-Dade County Ordinance 30-479. The Ordinance is titled
"Requirements for immobilizing vehicles without prior consent of
vehicle owner or duly authorized driver of vehicle." It provides,
in relevant part, that "any person who improperly causes a vehicle
to be immobilized will be liable to the vehicle owner or his
authorized representative for the cost of the services provided,
any damages results from the immobilization, and the immobilization
and attorney's fees."
Mr. Lacayo's complaint alleged that Versailles Gardens had
illegally caused his vehicle to be immobilized. Dade Booting, he
stated, was acting as Versailles Gardens' agent at the time of the
immobilization. The complaint alleges immobilization was unlawful
because Versailles Gardens did not have the proper signage to put
vehicle owners on notice.
In lieu of answering the complaint, Versailles Gardens filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, a
motion to dismiss Lacayo's complaint. The motion argued that the
proper party from which recovery could be sought was Dade Booting,
not Versailles Gardens. It further argued that the plain text of
the ordinance did not create a cause of action against the property
owner, but rather only against the company providing immobilization
services.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion and granted judgment
on the pleadings, finding the Ordinance inapplicable. The trial
court afforded Lacayo an opportunity to amend the complaint based
on its ruling, but Lacayo declined to do so. As a result, the trial
court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
The trial court dismissed Lacayo's lawsuit as it determined that
the Ordinance was inapplicable to the suit because it was brought
against the property owner, Versailles Gardens I Condominium
Association, Inc.
Mr. Lacayo argues the plain language of the Ordinance clearly
imposes liability on "any person who improperly causes a vehicle to
be immobilized," not just "a person providing immobilization
services."
District Court of Appeal agreed, reversed and remanded. Not final
until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Although Lacayo's complaint was a class action, the issues
pertaining to class certification were not argued to the trial
court and are not subject to consideration at this time. The
District Court of Appeal therefore expressed no opinion with regard
to class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/48k2xr65 from Leagle.com.
Cornish Hernandez Gonzalez, PLLC, and Igor Hernandez --
info@chglawyers.com; MAC Legal, P.A., and Michael A. Citron
(Hollywood) -- michael@maclegalpa.com -- for the Appellant.
Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial, LLC, Lawrence E. Burkhalter
-- lburkhalter@wwhgd.com -- and Theodore J. O'Brien --
tobrien@wwhgd.com -- for the Appellee.
VIATRIS INC: Bid for Decertification in EpiPen Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to decertify the
class action with respect to the remaining antitrust claims, in the
putative indirect purchaser class action relating to the pricing
and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector, is pending.
The Company has been named as a defendant in putative indirect
purchaser class actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of
the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.
The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as common
law claims.
Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the
product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct.
A former Mylan N.V. officer and other non-Viatris affiliated
companies are also defendants in some of the class actions.
Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
These lawsuits were filed in various federal and state courts and
have either been dismissed or transferred into an MDL in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas and have been
consolidated.
The District Court certified an antitrust class that applies to 17
states and a RICO class.
On June 23, 2021, the Court granted –- in substantial part -–
the Company's and former Mylan N.V. officer's motion for summary
judgment by dismissing certain antitrust claims and the RICO
claims, which included RICO claims asserted against the former
Mylan N.V. officer. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the summary judgment decision with respect to the RICO claims.
On July 8, 2021, the Company filed a motion to decertify the class
action with respect to the remaining antitrust claims.
A trial on the remaining antitrust claims against the Company is
currently scheduled to begin on January 24, 2022.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen Auto-Injector Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated putative class action suit related to EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.
Beginning in March 2020, the Company, together with other
non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in
putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts with
certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.
The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the
exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination
of pricing constraints in violation of The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and federal antitrust law.
These actions have been consolidated.
Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIATRIS INC: Dismissal of Ranitidine-Related Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the end-payor plaintiffs in the
ranitidine matter have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.
The Company, along with numerous other manufacturers, retailers,
and others, are parties to litigation relating to alleged trace
amounts of nitrosamine impurities in certain products, including
valsartan and ranitidine.
The vast majority of these lawsuits in the United States are
pending in two MDLs, namely an MDL pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning valsartan
and an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida concerning raniditine.
The lawsuits against the Company in the MDLs include putative class
actions seeking the refund of the purchase price and other economic
and punitive damages allegedly sustained by consumers and end
payors as well as individuals seeking compensatory and punitive
damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the
medications.
Similar lawsuits pertaining to valsartan have been filed in Canada
and other countries.
The Company has also received claims and inquiries related to these
products, as well as requests to indemnify purchasers of the
Company's active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and/ or finished
dose forms of these products.
The original master complaints concerning ranitidine were dismissed
on December 31, 2020.
The Company has not been named as a defendant in the amended master
complaints, though it is still named in certain short form personal
injury complaints.
The end-payor plaintiffs in the ranitidine matter have filed an
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIATRIS INC: EpiPen Auto-Injector Securities Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. continue to
defend a securities class action suit related to EpiPen
Auto-Injector(R).
Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. certain of Mylan's former
directors and officers, and certain of the Company's current
directors and officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of certain purchasers of
securities of Mylan on the NASDAQ.
The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating
to the classification of their EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector as a
non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate
Program.
On March 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
alleging substantially similar claims, but adding allegations that
defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of
purportedly material fact in connection with allegedly
anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and
certain generic drugs.
The operative complaint is the third amended consolidated
complaint, which was filed on June 17, 2019, and contains the
allegations as described above against Mylan, certain of Mylan's
former directors and officers, and certain of the Company's current
directors, officers, and employees.
A class has been certified covering all persons or entities that
purchased Mylan common stock between February 21, 2012 and May 24,
2019 excluding defendants, certain of the Company's current
directors and officers, former directors and officers of Mylan,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which defendants have or had a controlling interest.
Plaintiffs seek damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert costs.
On April 30, 2017, a similar lawsuit was filed in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division) in Israel, which has been stayed
pending a decision in the SDNY class action litigation.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Apodaca Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, IRAIDA APODACA, an individual and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals and the State of California,
Plaintiff v. VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 21GDCV01060 (Cal. Sup. Ct., August
20, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt employee from approximately August 2020 through January
8, 2021.
After accepting the job offer and as part of the Defendant's
business necessities, the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated aggrieved employees were compelled by the Defendant to
undergo drug testing. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and the class
members were not paid minimum wages for the time they were suffered
or permitted to work for the Defendant while at drug testing sites.
In addition, the Defendant failed to provide them with a wage
statement that complied with Labor Code Section 226(a) for the pay
period in which they performed work undergoing mandatory drug
testing for which they were not compensated for the time spent
participating in the drug testing, added the suit.
Volt Management Corp. is an international provider of staffing
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
Ari E. Moss, Esq.
Jorge A. Flores, Esq.
MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: (310) 982-2984
Fax: (818) 963-5954
E-mail: dennis@mossbollinger.com
jeremy@mossbollinger.com
ari@mossbollinger.com
anthony@mossbollinger.com
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Underpays District Fleet Managers, Mayer Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. and WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF WISCONSIN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00984 (E.D. Wis.,
August 20, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a District Fleet
Manager at the Defendants Menominee Falls, WI facility from on or
around October 26, 2020 through May 5, 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situate District Fleet Managers are often compensated at a rate
less than many technicians who are exclusively responsible for
manual vehicle maintenance. Despite regularly working in excess of
60 hours per week, the Defendant compensated them on a bi-weekly
salary of $3,076.92 without overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week, the suit says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated District Fleet Managers seeking to recover
actual damages against the Defendant, as well as liquidated
damages, injunctive relief, litigation expenses and costs,
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems proper.
Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc.
provide waste collection and other sanitation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Tel: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
WSGP GAS PRODUCING: Hoog Suit Moved to W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kevin Hoog, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WSGP Gas Producing, LLC, Trinity Operating
(USG), LLC, including affiliated predecessors and affiliated
successors, Defendants & Movants Case No. 6:16-cv-00463-RAW, was
moved from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma, Muskogee Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas on Aug. 29, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-mc-00756-LY to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Motion to
Quash.
Trinity Operating -- https://www.trinityoperating.com/ -- is an
independent oil and natural gas company headquartered in Houston
with current operations in Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.[BN]
The Defendants & Movants are represented by:
Michael D. Morfey, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
600 Travis, # 4200
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 220-4163
Fax: (713) 220-4285
Email: michaelmorfey@andrewskurth.com
- and -
Michele Rae Blythe, Esq.
NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC
700 Universe Blvd.
Juno Beach, FL 33408
Phone: (561) 691-7207
Fax: (561) 691-7103
Email: micheleblythe@andrewskurth.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***