/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211228.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 28, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 253
Headlines
AMICI PIZZA: Santiago Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
AUTOPAY DIRECT: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Staley Suit Says
BUILT USA: Faces Pariseau TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
CENTRAL PAYMENT: Seeks 8th Cir. Review in Custom Hair RICO Suit
CLOOPEN GROUP: Faces Boyan Dong Securities Suit Over ADS Price Drop
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Hearing on Jones Class Cert. Bid Reset
CRST EXPEDITED: Sellars Files Writ of Certiorari in Harassment Suit
CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: Street Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
DAHER CLEANING: Reply to Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 19, 2022
DELTA AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Annuity Benefits, DuVaney Suit Says
DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson Telemarketing Suit Seeks to Certify Class
DISTRESSED SOLUTIONS: Estevez Seeks Class Cert. Filing Extension
DRUMMOND COMPANY: Files Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time
EXTERIOR CREATIONS: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Suit Says
FAY SERVICING: Faces Mobley Class Suit Over Default Mortgage Loans
GEICO CASUALTY: Ohio Residents Get Class Status in Davis Suit
GREAT KILLS: Lobato Seeks New Hearing Date for Class Cert. Bid
INFINITY INSURANCE: Faces Carr Suit Over ACV Regulatory Fees
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Hahn Seeks Refunds of Improperly Withheld TSA Fees
L2 TRANSPORTATION: Sherman Seeks Unpaid Wages for Courier Drivers
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ct. OKs Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
MARSHA FOODS: Faces Moran Suit Over Cooks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 2244: Hip Implant Product Case Consolidated with N.D. Tex. MDL
MDL 2592: Heart Meds Product Litigation Suit Transferred to D. Del.
MDL 2885: Earplug Product Liability Row Transferred to N.D. Fla.
MDL No. 2873: Film-Forming Foams Product Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
MIKE DEWINE: Kevin Simon Seeks to Certify Class Action
MK CUISINE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Settlement in Kennedy Suit Gets Final Nod
NCR CORP: Appeals Denial of Motion for New Trial in Meadows Suit
NESTLE HEALTH: Foster Sues Over Mislabeled IBgard Oil Capsules
OMAZE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 22, 2022
OREGANO'S PIZZA: Fox Class Action Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Gardner Case Pending Resolution in Maney
ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Faces Somogyi Suit Over Stock Price Drop
OUTSOURCE RECEIVABLES: Harris Sues Over Unfair Collection Letter
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Faces Wiley Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
PERMANENT GENERAL: Connor Auto Policy Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Faces Taracevicz ERISA Class Suit Over ESOP
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Faces Huq Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Case Management Order Entered in CIS Suit
RESCARE INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to April 18, 2022
RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Faces Rosa Suit Over Illegal Collection Letters
SIDWELL AIR: Roberts Suit Seeks Wage & Overtime for Courier Drivers
SIMMONS BANK: Wilkins Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
SLEEP NUMBER: Faces Steamfitters Over Common Stock's Inflated Price
TIFFS TREATS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TIVITY HEALTH: Sheet Metal Seeks Extension for Class Cert. Reply
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Singh Seeks 3rd Circuit Review in Labor Suit
VIBRAM COMMERCE: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN AG: $42MM Settlement Hearing on March 7, 2022
VOYA FINANCIAL: Faces Ravarino ERISA Suit Over Retirement Plan
WALGREEN CO: Stevens Files Suit in S.D. New York
WATERFALL REVENUE: Settineri Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
WB STUDIO: Wilson Seeks Unpaid Wages Under California Labor Code
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA & IMWL
ZARA USA: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation
*********
AMICI PIZZA: Santiago Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SANTIAGO, on Behalf of himself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. AMICI PIZZA CORP. d/b/a CAFFE AMICI, SALVATORE CACCIATO
and JOSEPH PULLARA, Case No. 2:21-cv-06857 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10,
2021) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon
Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights
guaranteed to him by the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL).
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook and maintenance
worker for the Defendants from 2006 until April 15, 2021.
Throughout his employment, the Defendants required Plaintiff to
work, and Plaintiff did work, over 40 hours a week, says the suit.
However, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff at the
minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in
excess of 40, as the FLSA and the NYLL require.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com
AUTOPAY DIRECT: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Staley Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Staley, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. AutoPay Direct, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00969 (E.D.
Tex., Dec. 14, 2021) is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff
pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal
Portal-to-Portal Pay Act (collectively FLSA) for the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half her regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek as
an employee of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff worked in Defendant's automobile loan business
operations as a loan processor from August 4, 2021 to December 1,
2021. On December 1, 2021, the Plaintiff became a quality assurance
employee and is currently employed by the Defendant in that role.
The Plaintiff is an hourly paid employee for the Defendant who was
also paid bonus compensation. Allegedly, the Defendant did not
include those bonuses in calculating Plaintiff's regular rate of
Plaintiff's pay when determining the overtime wages she was owed
and paid. That resulted in an underpayment of the FLSA overtime
wages the Defendant should have paid the Plaintiff.[BN]
Autopay is a lender marketplace specializing in auto refinance and
new purchase finance.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, Tx 75201
Telephone: (972) 707-7816
Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
BUILT USA: Faces Pariseau TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TARAZ PARISEAU, on behalf of Civil herself and all others similarly
situated v. BUILT USA, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-02902-SDM-JSS (M.D.
Fla., Dec. 14, 2021) arises out of Built USA, LLC's marketing
practices that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
According to the complaint, Built USA sends, or has sent on its
behalf, telemarketing text messages advertising Built USA's
sweepstakes, to individuals on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
Built USA continues to send these text messages even after it
receives multiple requests from the called party requesting that
Built USA STOP.
These text messages allegedly fail to properly identify the source
of the text The amendment to the FTSA became effective on July 1,
2021. Failing to provide identifying information violates the
requirements of both the TCPA and FTSA that all telemarketing calls
clearly identify the caller and the seller and provide contact
information, the suit adds.
Ms. Pariseau is the user of a cellular telephone number ending in
6899. Ms. Pariseau's cellular telephone number ending in 6899 is
used for residential purposes and is not associated with a
business. Ms. Pariseau's telephone number ending in 6899 has been
on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since May 11, 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 Northwest 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
CENTRAL PAYMENT: Seeks 8th Cir. Review in Custom Hair RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Central Payment Co., LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, et
al. v. Central Payment Co., Case No. 8:17-cv-00310-JFB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Custom Hair
brought a class action alleging breach of contract, state-law
fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
The class members are over 160,000 small retailers using Central
Payment Co., LLC ("CPAY") for credit card processing. CPAY does
not employ its (loosely affiliated) agents. They use form
contracts with blanks for the pricing terms, which are subject to
negotiation. Individual retailers can select from two basic pricing
schemes--"pass-through" or "tiered" (by class of transaction). Both
focus on the price-per-transaction that credit card issuers impose.
Changes to the price-per-transaction must be approved by the
issuing banks under the terms of CPAY's form contract.
The Plaintiffs allege CPAY misrepresented a number of fees, added
fees with no value to retailers, and inflated fees without prior
approval from issuing banks. They stress that the FTC previously
barred, for fraud, CPAY's founders from selling auction guides.
CPAY moved for summary judgment. In a single order, the district
court denied summary judgment and certified the class.
On April 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to stay class
members' claims that are subject to binding arbitration agreements
and a motion for leave to file an amended answer and defenses to
Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint.
On December 9, 2021, Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an
order denying Defendant's motion to stay to compel arbitration and
denying motion to amend answer.
The Defendant now seeks a review of the order entered by Judge
Bataillon.
The appellate case is captioned as Central Payment Co., LLC v.
Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, et al., Case No. 21-3854, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on
December 14, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on January 24, 2022;
-- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Central Payment Co. is due on January /24,
2022; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant Central Payment Co., LLC is represented by:
David L. Balser, Esq.
Brandon R. Keel, Esq.
Allison H. White, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
bkeel@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
- and -
Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
COUNCILL & GUNNEMANN
Building 400, Suite 100
1201 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (404) 537-3129
- and -
Kenneth W. Hartman, Esq.
Nicholas F. Miller, Esq.
BAIRD & HOLM
1500 Woodmen Tower
1700 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68102-0000
Telephone: (402) 344-0500
E-mail: khartman@bairdholm.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, LLC and Skip's
Precision Welding, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Eric David Barton, I, Esq.
Melody R. Dickson, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
Sarah Steen Ruane, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112-0000
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com
mdickson@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and -
Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
WEBB & KLASE
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339-0000
CLOOPEN GROUP: Faces Boyan Dong Securities Suit Over ADS Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BOYAN DONG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. CLOOPEN GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, CHANGXUN SUN, YIPENG
LI, KUI ZHOU, QINGSHENG ZHENG, XIAODONG LIANG, ZI YANG, MING LIAO,
FENG ZHU, LOK YAN HUI, JIANHONG ZHOU, CHING CHIU, XIEGANG XIONG,
CHENG LUO, YUNHAO LIU, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., COLLEEN A. DEVRIES,
GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CHINA
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED,
TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED, and FUTU INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10610
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021) is a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who: (a) purchased or otherwise acquired Cloopen
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's February 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or
(b) purchased or otherwise acquired Cloopen securities between
February 9, 2021 and May 10, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Plaintiff brings strict liability, non-fraud claims under
Securities Act of 1933 against all Defendants and fraud-based
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Cloopen
and its Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive
Officer, as well as the Company's Chief Financial Officer.
In its February 2021 U.S. IPO, Cloopen sold 23 million ADSs
(including the full exercise of the Underwriter Defendants'
over-allotment option) at $16 per ADS, netting approximately $342
million in proceeds from the offering. However, the Registration
Statement contained materially false and misleading statements of
fact and failed to disclose facts required to be disclosed therein
regarding Cloopen's business, operations, and prospects.
The Registration Statement led Cloopen ADS purchasers to believe
that the Company's much-touted growth strategy, which relied upon
cross-selling, up-selling, optimizing existing solutions, and
developing new features, was effective. Indeed, as portrayed in
the
Registration Statement, Cloopen appeared to be retaining and even
expanding its customer base, as well as maintaining its key sales
metrics such as dollar-based net retention rate, which reflected
its ability to increase existing customer revenue, says the suit.
Yet, Cloopen's alleged representations concerning its successful
growth strategy were materially false and misleading. In fact,
Cloopen's growth strategy was not working and its existing
customers were abandoning the Company. Unbeknownst to investors,
Cloopen's dollar-based net retention rate had plummeted during the
fourth quarter of 2020 ("4Q 2020"). In 4Q 2020, the Company's net
retention rate had dropped well below the 94.7% rate reported for
the nine months ended September 30, 2020. The plunging dollar-based
net retention rate caused the Company's fiscal year 2020 ("FY
2020") retention rate to tumble to 86.8%, down from the Company's
fiscal year 2019 ("FY 2019") retention rate of 102.7%.
Cloopen's Registration Statement further failed to disclose that an
increasing number of its customers were refusing to pay, forcing
the Company to record massive increases in its accounts receivables
and allowance for doubtful accounts. The Registration Statement
also failed to disclose that Cloopen was weighted down by massive
liabilities related to the fair value of certain recently-granted
warrants.
On March 26, 2021, just over six weeks after its IPO, Cloopen
shocked the market when it published its 4Q 2020 and FY 2020
financial results, which closed on December 31, 2020,
more than a month before the IPO. Cloopen reported 4Q 2020 revenues
of just $39.6 million, $2 million shy of analysts' consensus, net
losses of $46.8 million, representing a staggering 466.9% increase
year-over-year, and operating expenses of $27.6 million,
representing a 30% increase over 4Q 2019. Cloopen blamed a "change
in fair value of warrant liabilities of US$34.4 million" for
Cloopen's remarkable net loss and "an increase in the provision for
doubtful accounts resulting from increased in accounts receivables"
for the 59.2% increase in general and administrative expenses.
In response to this shocking news, the price of Cloopen's ADSs fell
18.5%, dropping from $14.42 per ADS on March 25, 2021 to $11.75 per
ADS on March 26, 2021.
Yet, even then, Cloopen's most senior officers continued to make
materially false and misleading statements to the market and failed
to reveal the true extent of Cloopen's troubles. In the March 26,
2021 earnings announcement and investor conference call, Cloopen's
senior executives continued to misrepresent the Company's expansion
strategy, again failing to acknowledge that the strategy was
failing and its existing customer base was deteriorating. Nor did
they disclose that Cloopen's dollar-based net retention rate had
tumbled in 4Q 2020.
Weeks later, as Cloopen belatedly revealed additional facts about
its failed growth strategy and withering customer base, including
that its dollar-based net retention rate by year end 2020 fell far
below historical periods, Cloopen's share price fell again, closing
at $8.97 per ADS on May 12, 2021, added the suit.
As of the time of this Complaint, Cloopen's share price has dropped
as low as $2.70 per ADS, a decline of more than 80% from the $16
IPO price.
Plaintiff Boyan Dong purchased Cloopen ADSs during the Class Period
and pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement, and
has been damaged thereby.
Cloopen claims to be the largest multi-capability cloud-based
communications solution provider in China. The Company purportedly
is the only Chinese provider that offers a full suite of
cloud-based communications solutions covering communications
platform as a service (CPaaS), cloud-based contact centers
(cloud-based CC), and cloud-based unified communications and
collaborations (cloud-based UC&C).
Cloopen claims that it serves a diverse and loyal customer base
consisting of enterprises of all sizes across a variety of
industries, including internet, telecommunications, financial
services, education, industrial manufacturing, and energy.
The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 292-5690
Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com
michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Hearing on Jones Class Cert. Bid Reset
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE JONES et al., v.
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., et al., Case No.
3:20-CV-00654-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney
entered an order rescheduling the hearing on Plaintiffs' pending
motion to certify class.
The hearing currently scheduled for Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at
2:00 p.m., rescheduled to January 19, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. in
Courtroom No. 5B of the Charles R. Jonas Federal Building, 401 W.
Trade Street, Charlotte, North Carolina, says Judge Whitney.
Coca-Cola makes, sells and distributes Coca-Cola products along
with other beverages, distributing to a market of 65 million people
in 14 states.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eyXIEZ at no extra charge.[CC]
CRST EXPEDITED: Sellars Files Writ of Certiorari in Harassment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cathy Sellars, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled CATHY SELLERS, CLAUDIA LOPEZ, and LESLIE FORTUNE, On Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioners v.
CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Respondent, Case No. 21-843.
Response is due on January 7, 2022.
Ms. Sellars, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight
Circuit in the case titled Sellars v. CRST Expedited Inc., Case No.
19-2708, The Eight Circuit rejected the Plaintiff's constructive
discharge claim because it concluded there was no evidence CRST
wanted to compel the named plaintiffs to quit.
The questions presented are: 1) Where an employee complains to her
employer about sexual harassment, does the employer fully satisfy
its legal obligation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 if it stops the harassment of that employee by the particular
harasser complained of (the rule in the Eighth Circuit), or must
the employer also take action to deter future harassment by other
potential harassers (the standard in the Ninth and Tenth
Circuits)?; and 2) If under an employer's policy a complaint of
sexual harassment would "directly lead to a net decrease in pay" to
the complaining employee, is that policy a per se violation of
Section 704(a) of Title VII, regardless of the employer's
motivation in adopting the policy?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, CRST operates
its transportation company by teaming together two drivers per
truck so one driver may sleep while the other is driving. CRST has
a written policy prohibiting sexual harassment
in its workplace. The policy also prohibits unlawful employment
discrimination and retaliation. The policy is contained within the
handbooks that are distributed to CRST drivers and home office
employees, including driver managers ("DMs").
The Plaintiffs are female truck drivers who assert claims of
hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against their employer, CRST. They
contend that CRST repeatedly failed to discipline DMs for failure
to follow its policy of immediately separating drivers upon receipt
of a sexual harassment complaint and escalate that complaint to HR.
They suggest that DMs are incentivized to keep the trucks moving
because stopping them due to sexual harassment complaints will
affect their compensation metrics. They allege sexual harassment is
allowed to thrive under this purported policy, pattern or practice
of failing to discipline DMs for mishandling complaints.
This certiorari petition presents two related circuit conflicts
regarding Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Eighth
Circuit decision expressly rejects the Ninth Circuit standard
regarding when an employer is liable for negligently failing to
prevent and respond to co-worker sexual harassment forbidden by
section 703. A decision also refuses to follow the Seventh
Circuit's interpretation of the anti-retaliation provision of
section 704(a). The Eighth Circuit rejected those Seventh and Ninth
Circuit standards at the express urging of CRST.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Cathy Sellars, et al., are represented by:
Eric Schnapper, Esq.
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
School of Law
Box 353020
Seattle, WA 98195
Telephone: (206) 660-8845
E-mail: schnapp@uw.edu
- and -
Giselle B. Schuetz, Esq.
Rebecca J. Houlding, Esq.
Joshua Friedman, Esq.
FRIEDMAN & HOULDING LLP
1050 Seven Oaks Lane
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Telephone: (888) 369-1119
CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: Street Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN STREET IV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05060-JPB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 10, 2021) seeks damages for
unpaid compensation, including overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and liquidated damages, expenses
of litigation, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief.
The Plaintiff contends that he was a non-exempt employee under the
FLSA. He did not qualify for any of the FLSA's exemptions during
his employment with the Defendant. As a non-exempt employee, the
Plaintiff was subject to the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime
provisions. Throughout his employment, he regularly worked more
than 40 hours per workweek, he adds.
The Defendant has willfully and intentionally failed and/or refused
to compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
in accordance with the FLSA, alleges the suit.
Customized Distribution provides transportation services and
operates as a food service distributor that supplies to the
restaurant industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 254-0842
Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
E-mail: aw@wsjustice.com
js@wsjustice.com
DAHER CLEANING: Reply to Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 19, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OFELIA ALVAREZ and SILVIA
ALVAREZ, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and Other
similarly situated current and former employees, v. DAHER CLEANING
SERVICES OF TENNESSEE COMPANY, A Tennessee Corporation, MARA
DAHER-BOYER, individually, and SIEGFRIED A. RICHTER, JT.,
individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-00479 (N.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Aleta A. Trauger entered an order extending the deadline for filing
Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification to Jan. 19, 2022.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification on
November 5, 2021. Pursuant to the Initial Case Management Order,
the Defendants have 45 days to respond to the motion for
conditional certification, the Court said.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mrRhb2 at no extra charge.[CC]
DELTA AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Annuity Benefits, DuVaney Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marsha R. DuVaney, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., the Administrative Committee of
Delta Airlines, Inc., Greg Tahvonen, Mindy Davison, Janet Brunk and
John/Jane Does 1–5, Case No. 2:21-cv-02186 (D. Nev., Dec. 10,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants concerning the
failure to pay joint and survivor annuity (JSA) benefits under the
Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees (the
"Contract Plan"), the Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees (the "Salaried Plan"), and the Northwest Airlines Pension
Plan for Pilot Employees (the "Pilots Plan") in amounts that meet
the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA") with respect to actuarial equivalence.
The Defendants' alleged violation of ERISA's actuarial equivalence
requirements causes retirees to lose part of their vested
retirement benefits in violation of ERISA.
Delta sponsors the Plans. Under the Plans, a participant earns
retirement benefits in the form of a single life annuity ("SLA"),
which is a single annuity that pays monthly benefits for the rest
of the participant's life, with payments to a beneficiary annuitant
after the participant's 20 .
The Plans offer participants the option of receiving their benefits
in forms other than an SLA, including several JSAs. JSAs are an
annuity for the life of the participant with a contingent annuity
for the life of the participant's spouse. A JSA may provide
different payment amounts to the spouse than the monthly benefit
that is paid during the joint lives of the participant and the
spouse, typically expressed as a percentage. Thus, a JSA that pays
the spouse half of the amount that was paid before the
participant's death is referred to as a 50% JSA; one that pays the
spouse three quarters of the amount paid prior to the participant's
death is a 75% JSA, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself
and the proposed Class, seeking, inter alia, an Order from the
Court reforming the Plans to conform to ERISA, payment of future
benefits in accordance with the reformed Plans, as required under
ERISA, payment of amounts improperly withheld, and such other
relief as the Court determines is just and equitable.
Plaintiff DeVaney is a resident of Henderson, Nevada, and a
participant in the Contract Plan. Mrs. DeVaney worked as a flight
attendant for Northwest for approximately 33 years and began
collecting benefits on January 31, 2020. She currently receives a
50% joint and survivor annuity, with her husband as the
beneficiary.
Delta is an air carrier incorporated in Delaware with its
headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta, along with its
subsidiaries and affiliates, operates over 5,000 flights daily and
serves an extensive domestic and international network with over
300 destinations on 6 continents. Delta is the sponsor of the Plans
under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(16)(B) and a named fiduciary under 29
U.S.C. section 1002(A)(2).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don Springmeyer, Esq.
Michael J. Gayan, Esq.
Alysa M. Grimes, Esq.
KEMP JONES LLP
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor
Las Vegas, NE 89169
Telephone: (702) 385-6000
Facsimile: (702) 385-6001
E-mail: d.springmeyer@kempjones.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
IZARD KINDALL & RAABE
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
dneedham@ikrlaw.com
ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1054 31 st Street, NW, Suite 230
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
mboyko@baileyglasser.com
DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson Telemarketing Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW DICKSON, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. DIRECT ENERGY, LP, et
al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00182-JRA (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"All persons within the United States whose cellular
numbers are included on the class list attached as an
exhibit to the expert report of Anya Verkhovskaya: (a) who
received telemarketing calls from Direct Energy, acting
through TMC and Silverman; (b) promoting Direct Energy's
products or services; (c) on their cellular telephone
numbers; (d) using an artificial or prerecorded voice; and
(e) at any at any time in between May 15, 2017 and June 9,
2018;"
2. appointing him as the class representative; and
3. appointing his attorneys as class counsel.
The proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23, the Plaintiff
says.
According to the complaint, at issue in this litigation is a
massive campaign of pre-recorded telemarketing conducted by Direct
Energy's agents, TMC and Silverman, and carried out via a
technology known as Ringless Voice Mail ("RVM"). RVM is a type of
technology that allows a telemarketer to leave a pre-recorded voice
message on a consumer's cell phone without causing the phone to
ring or giving a call recipient a chance to reject the call.
The basic facts as to the telemarketing scheme at issue are not in
dispute. Direct Energy hired TMC to telemarket on its behalf. With
Direct Energy's explicit approval, TMC worked with its vendor,
Silverman, to make RVM pre-recorded telemarketing calls to the cell
phones of millions of class members promoting Direct Energy goods
or services using Direct Energy's trade name.
In other words, recipients of the RVM pre-recorded calls at issue
were told that it was Direct Energy itself that was calling. The
scope of the illegal telemarketing campaign is also not in dispute.
As detailed infra, the call records evidencing the Direct Energy
pre-recorded RVM campaign ("Call Records") have been obtained by
counsel for Mr. Dickson and analyzed by his data expert. In total,
the Defendants made 3,295,028 RVM telemarketing calls to the
cellular phone numbers owned or used by 2,867,388 class members.
Matthew Dickson is a consumer who resides in Ohio and filed this
class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
to hold the Defendants to account for their illegal telemarketing
practices. Specifically, Mr. Dickson alleged that on November 3,
2017, he received a pre-recorded message on his cellular phone
promoting Direct Energy's goods or services.
Direct Energy is a North American retailer of energy and energy
services. The company was founded in Toronto in 1986 and now has
more than four million customers in Canada and the United States.
Direct Energy is a subsidiary of NRG Energy.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H7LT4F
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
misny@mmmb.com
- and -
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
1 South Avenue, Suite 3
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (608) 237-1774
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
DISTRESSED SOLUTIONS: Estevez Seeks Class Cert. Filing Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW ESTEVEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DISTRESSED SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Corporation, ACME MARKETING COMPANY, INC., a Delaware Limited
Liability Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-22770-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending deadline for
filing his motion for class certification up to and including
February 18, 2022.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qekQxC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
- and -
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
The Defendants are represented by:
James A. Peterson, Esq.
PETERSON LEGAL P.A.
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 130-550
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-8076
E-mail: James@PetersonLegal.com
- and -
Stephenie Biernacki Anthony, Esq.
Frank A. Lafalce, Esq.
ANTHONY & PARTNERS, LLC
100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 1600
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 273-5616
Facsimile: (813) 221-4113
E-mail: santhony@anthonyandpartners.com
flafalce@anthonyandpartners.com
DRUMMOND COMPANY: Files Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN J. JERUE (Dismissed)
and MICHAEL J. FEIST, v. DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., Case No.
8:17-cv-00587-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order enlarging the time for Drummond to respond
to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike to and including January 10, 2022.
The Plaintiff filed his motion to strike on December 10, 2021,
making Drummond's response due on December 27, 2021. Counsel for
Drummond need additional time to respond to the motion due to the
intervening holidays. The Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a
brief extension of time through and including January 10, 2022, to
respond to the Motion, the Defendant says.
Drummond is a privately owned company based in Birmingham, Alabama,
United States, involved in the mining and processing of coal and
coal products as well as oil and real estate.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EwCB0u at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Frederick J. Grady, Esq.
Joseph H. Varner, III, Esq.
Charles Wachter, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 4100
Tampa, FL 33602-3644
Telephone: (813) 227-8500
E-mail: joe.varner@hklaw.com
fred.grady@hklaw.com
charles.wachter@hklaw.com
- and -
Bryan O. Balogh, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
420 North 20 th Street, Suite 3400
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 458-5469
EXTERIOR CREATIONS: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO TULIO ARTEAGA and VICTOR GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EXTERIOR CREATIONS, INC. and CASEY
B. HUFF, Case No. 4:21-cv-04076 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 14, 2021) contends
that the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked as
required by 29 U.S.C. section 206.
The Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees. As non-exempt employees,
Defendants were legally obligated to pay Plaintiffs "at a rate not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate" for the hours
they worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs and other laborers must report to
Exterior Creations' facility on Magic Oak Drive in Spring, Texas as
early as 6:30 a.m. Upon arriving at the facility, the Plaintiffs
and other laborers load landscaping and lawncare equipment and
tools provided by Exterior Creations onto company vehicles
(typically, pick-up trucks). Exterior Creations assigns Plaintiffs
and other laborers to work crews, generally consisting of two
laborers and one supervisor. Each crew receives a schedule listing
the customer locations for the workday. Each crew rides in an
assigned Exterior Creations' vehicle, driven by the supervisor,
from the facility to each customer location on the daily schedule.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants. Defendants were legally
obligated to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked. This included,
but is not limited to, time spent loading company vehicles,
traveling to worksites, traveling back to the facility, and
unloading vehicles.
Mr. Arteaga and Mr. Gomez have worked for Exterior Creations as
laborers from mid-2017 through the present.
As laborers, the Plaintiffs' primary duties involve performing
manual and physical tasks related to landscaping and lawncare,
including cutting grass, removing weeds, raking and blowing leaves,
trimming limbs and hedges, applying soil and mulch, and associated
cleaning and maintenance activities.
Exterior Creations provides landscaping, lawncare, and associated
outdoor maintenance and repair services to commercial and
residential customers. In order to provide these services, Exterior
Creations hires laborers who physically perform landscaping,
lawncare, and related activities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mauro Ramirez, Esq.
RAMIREZ LAW, PLLC
4801 Woodway Drive, Suite 300 East
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 955-3480
Facsimile: (281) 768-3610
E-mail: mauro@ramirezpllc.com
FAY SERVICING: Faces Mobley Class Suit Over Default Mortgage Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN E. MOBLEY, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated vs. FAY SERVICING LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-62488-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 13, 2021) is a class action lawsuit for violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and the Truth in Lending Act of
1968 (TILA).
This is a putative class action brought under rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Plaintiff Mobley, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against a
major loan servicer, Fay Servicing.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members are homeowners whose loans are
in default and/or their homes have been in foreclosure.
FAY is servicer of the mortgage loans which encumber Plaintiff's
and Class Members' homes. As a servicer, FAY regularly acts as a
debt collector. This action is commenced to address FAY's alleged
pattern and practice of failing to provide homeowners with an
accurate statement regarding the mortgages that it services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-7062
E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
- and -
Jessica L. Kerr, Esq.
THE ADVOCACY GROUP
100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (954) 282-1858
Facsimile: (954) 282-8277
E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com
GEICO CASUALTY: Ohio Residents Get Class Status in Davis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET DAVIS, ANGEL
RANDALL, ALMA LEE RESENDEZ, MANDY PHELAN, and TREY ROBERTS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GEICO CASUALTY CO., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02477-EAS-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
behalf of:
"All Ohio residents insured under a GEICO private-
passenger auto property damage policy who (1) submitted a
first-party property damage claim from January 1, 2009
through August 1, 2020 that was (2) determined by Geico to
be a covered total-loss claim, and where (3) GEICO's
total-loss claim payment(s) did not include ACV Sales Tax
and/or Transfer Fees;" and
2. denying the Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-
reply.
The Court finds that the certification of this Class is a superior
method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
All the Class members' alleged damages were caused by the
interpretations of the Defendants' Policies, which Plaintiffs
allege are incorrect and unlawful.
On June 13, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed this case as a putative
class action. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, which the Court denied on January 7, 2020. On
March 3, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC).
The TAC alleges that the Defendants -- five GEICO insurance
companies -- breached the Plaintiffs' insurance policies when they
paid the actual cash value (ACV) of their vehicles.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants failed to pay sales
taxes and transfer and registration fees even though GEICO's Policy
defines ACV to include such costs. The Plaintiffs each bring a
claim for breach of contract on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of a putative class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for all Ohio residents
who "suffered a first-party total-loss of a covered vehicle during
the 15 years before July 30, 2020 through class certification." The
Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for class certification.
GEICO operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mtdENd at no extra charge.[CC]
GREAT KILLS: Lobato Seeks New Hearing Date for Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lobato v. Great Kills
Marina Cafe Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05579-KAM-SJB
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order setting
a new conference hearing date to discuss Plaintiff's proposed class
certification motion.
According to the Plaintiff's counsel, that Defendants' counsel has
failed to provide the executed class settlement agreement that the
parties previously agreed to and has again failed to respond to
Plaintiff's inquires as to the status of the settlement agreement.
After the last Court conference where Defendants' counsel stated he
would obtain the Defendants' signatures for the term sheet, he has
disappeared again and has failed to respond to any of Plaintiff's
counsels' follow-ups and enquiries.
Pursuant to the December 2, 2021, Tele-Conference with the Court,
the parties had discussed the proposed settlement between the
parties and decided that the Class Certification hearing was
unnecessary, as the parties had tentatively agreed to a settlement
and would instead brief a motion for Class Settlement. Therefore,
Plaintiff's counsel then followed up with counsel for Defendants
numerous times between December 6, 2021, and December 10, 2021, and
as of December 13, 2021, Defendants' counsel has again disappeared
and remains unresponsive, the Plaintiff's counsel added.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32e6ZzJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP , PLLC
148 W EST 24 TH S TREET , E IGHTH F LOOR
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: INFO@LEELITIGATION.COM
INFINITY INSURANCE: Faces Carr Suit Over ACV Regulatory Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN CARR, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana insurance
company, Case No. 21STCV45239 (Cal. Super, Los Angeles Cty., Dec.
13, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, the
named insured under an Infinity automobile policy issued for
private passenger auto physical damage including comprehensive and
collision coverage (the Policy).
Allegedly, the Defendant's Policy, consistent with California law,
promises payment of "Actual Cash Value" ("ACV") in the event of a
total loss of an insured vehicle. Pursuant to the terms of the
Policy, ACV includes, inter alia, California State sales tax and
State-mandated regulatory fees. However, in violation of its
Policy, Infinity refuses to pay full mandatory regulatory fees (or,
in cases, underpays sales tax or mandatory regulatory fees) when it
purports to pay ACV to insureds who have suffered a total loss of
their insured vehicle.
Defendant Infinity is one of the largest passenger auto insurance
carriers operating in the State of California. One of the coverages
Infinity sells to consumers is comprehensive and collision
coverage. Infinity systematically and uniformly underpaid Plaintiff
and thousands of other putative Class Members amounts owed its
insureds who suffered the total loss of a vehicle insured with
comprehensive and collision coverage.
Pursuant to its standard Policy form language, Infinity is also
obligated to pay the full title, registration and regulatory fees
imposed by the State of California on the purchase and registration
of automobiles in the state ("ACV regulatory fees"). Nevertheless,
Infinity, in violation of its contract, pays only a portion of such
fees to all insureds, thus breaching its contract with every
insured who suffered a total-loss to their insured vehicle.
This lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated insureds who have suffered damages due
to Infinity's practice of refusing to pay full ACV regulatory fees
to first-party total loss insureds on physical damage policies
containing comprehensive and collision coverages.
The alleged failure to pay ACV regulatory fees on first-party total
losses owed to Infinity insureds pursuant to Infinity's uniform
policy language constitutes a breach of the policy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: 305-610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Edmond A. Normand, Esq.
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: service@normandpllc.com
ed@normandpllc.com
jacob@normandpllc.com
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Hahn Seeks Refunds of Improperly Withheld TSA Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Hahn, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06867
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2021) is a class action seeking to obtain
refunds of improperly withheld September 11th Security Fees (TSA
Fee) for passengers who cancelled their tickets with JetBlue prior
to travel, or otherwise did not travel.
On August 3, 2021, the Plaintiff used the JetBlue web site,
jetblue.com, to purchase an airline ticket to fly on JetBlue from
Los Angeles LAX to San Francisco SFO. He paid $58.40, an amount
that included airfare, all taxes, and a TSA Fee.
On November 23, 2021, Plaintiff determined that he did not wish to
travel, so he alerted JetBlue. Using the chat feature on the
JetBlue website, the Plaintiff requested a refund of his TSA Fee.
The JetBlue representative rejected his request, says the suit.
A large number of passengers buy tickets for travel on JetBlue, but
then do not travel. In such circumstances, JetBlue systematically
fails to refund their TSA Fee to them as required by law.
The COVID-19 pandemic has expanded the set of passengers who do not
use their pre-purchased travel.
The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action for monetary
relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of the following Class:
"All passengers who booked travel with JetBlue and paid JetBlue
a TSA Passenger Fee, and who canceled such travel, within the
past 6 years.
Plaintiff Spencer Hahn is a United States citizen residing in
California.
Defendant JetBlue is one of the largest airlines in the United
States. JetBlue is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Long
Island City, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oren Giskan, Esq.
Amy Robinson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
L2 TRANSPORTATION: Sherman Seeks Unpaid Wages for Courier Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE SHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. L2 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC, NORTHEAST
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, and DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC. d.b.a. DHL
EXPRESS, Case No. 3:21-668 (W.D.N.C., Dec. 14, 2021) alleges that
Defendants failed to comply with applicable wage and hour laws and
to pay non-exempt Courier Drivers for all time worked, including
overtime, as was required to deliver hundreds of DHL packages each
day and meet DHL's delivery needs throughout North Carolina, South
Carolina, and potentially other states under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
Plaintiff Jamie Sherman is a citizen of South Carolina and resides
in Pawley's Island, South Carolina. The Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants as a Courier Driver in Charlotte, North Carolina from
April 2020 to June 2020.
Defendants L2 and NTS provide last-mile delivery services to
Defendant DHL. The Defendants jointly employ non-exempt Courier
Drivers, such as Plaintiff and members of the proposed Collective,
to transport packages from DHL's facilities to DHL's customers
(Courier Drivers).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Reginald Streater, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
rstreater@bm.net
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ct. OKs Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON MIDDLETON, et al.,
v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00668-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole
entered granting the parties' joint motion to extend deadlines in
Calendar Order as follows:
-- Defendants' class certification March 29, 2022
expert report(s) and designation(s):
-- Disclosure of lay witnesses: April 5, 2022
-- Defendants' Opposition to Motion April 20, 2022
for Class Certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' May 9, 2022
Opposition to Motion for Class
Certification:
Liberty Mutual operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qugHWy at no extra charge.[CC]
MARSHA FOODS: Faces Moran Suit Over Cooks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHASITY MORAN, Individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated current, Plaintiff v. MARSHA FOODS AND FUEL INC., a
Tennessee corporation, and GIRISH PANCHAL, an individual
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00914 (M.D. Tenn., December 9, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate Plaintiff and others at the
rate of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all the
hours worked over 40 hours in one workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at Defendants' Kirby Stop
convenience store located Portland, Tennessee.
Marsha Foods and Fuel Inc., a Tennessee corporation, operates
multiple convenience stores, such as the "Kirby Stop," throughout
Middle Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
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
MDL 2244: Hip Implant Product Case Consolidated with N.D. Tex. MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation captioned In Re: Depuy
Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability
Litigation, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers two cases in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey namely,
Thick v. Medical Device Business Services, Inc. et. al (Case No.
3:21−16661) and Hitchcock v. Johnson & Johnson, et. al. (Case No.
3:21−17120) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to James E.
Kinkeade for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The action shares factual questions arising from alleged injuries
from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implants. Thick and
Hitchcock moved to vacate the conditional transfer order
principally by arguing that federal jurisdiction is lacking over
their case. The panel contends that the case is best addressed by
the transferee judge, who can structure pretrial proceedings to
accommodate the needs of all parties to this litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 9, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3JejQ5w
MDL 2592: Heart Meds Product Litigation Suit Transferred to D. Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) patent litigation, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transfers Hu, et. al. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, et.
al. (Case No. 4:21-05990, N.D. Cal.) to the Eastern District of
Louisiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge
Eldon E. Fallon for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Hu, proceeding pro se, move vacate the order conditionally
transferring said action to MDL No. 2592. Defendants Bayer
HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
oppose the motion and support transfer.
Hu alleges that Xarelto causes severe bleeding and other injuries
and that defendants did not adequately warn prescribing physicians
or consumers of the risks associated with Xarelto. In support of
the motion to vacate, plaintiffs principally argue that the
pretrial proceedings in the MDL are complete, that the discovery
requirements of the MDL are unduly burdensome, that injury involves
plaintiff-specific issues and transfer will be inconvenient and
impose hardship on plaintiffs.
The panel routinely leaves to the discretion of the transferee
court all issues related to the conduct of discovery and other
pretrial proceedings when transferring actions to an MDL. To the
extent plaintiffs have concerns about the timetable for complying
with discovery obligations, they should bring those issues to the
attention of the transferee court for resolution. Plaintiff's
alleged injury, a cerebral hemorrhage, is not unique. The common
injury alleged in the MDL is severe bleeding, and plaintiffs'
injuries in the MDL have included cerebral hemorrhage. The panel
further contends that there will be some individualized factual
issues in plaintiffs' action, but these issues should not negate
the efficiencies to be gained by transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 6, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3ppseaz
MDL 2885: Earplug Product Liability Row Transferred to N.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In case, "In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability
Litigation," MDL No. 2885, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring three actions pending in the District of
Minnesota (all against 3M Company) to the Northern District of
Florida and assigned to Judge Casey Rodgers for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The actions in MDL No. 2885 arise out of common allegations that
3M's Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing plaintiffs to
develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Plaintiffs in the MDL No.
2885 actions also allege that defendant Aero falsified test results
for the earplugs and used modified fitting instructions that
provided more protection to users, but that those instructions were
not disclosed to plaintiffs. Like plaintiffs in the MDL No. 2885
actions, plaintiffs in the actions allege that the flanges on
Combat Arms earplugs fold back when used as instructed, loosening
the seal in the ear canal of the user. The panel says that these
actions thus squarely fall within the ambit of MDL No. 2885.
Plaintiffs in these actions allege only a failure-to-warn claim,
while most MDL No. 2885 actions also bring a claim for design
defect. But Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims are similar to those
alleged in the MDL No. 2885 actions, thus these actions share
factual and legal questions with the MDL No. 2885 actions
concerning the adequacy of the insertion instructions, the
different insertion method allegedly used during testing, and the
allegation that when the earplugs were inserted as instructed, they
did not work properly.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 8, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/33IU9cT
MDL No. 2873: Film-Forming Foams Product Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In case product liability litigation, "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming
Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873, Chairperson
Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring two case from the U.S.
District Court of Alaska to the District of South Carolina and
assigned to Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the District of Alaska action moved to vacate said
transfer order that conditionally transferred their case to the
District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873, primarily
arguing that federal subject matter jurisdiction over these actions
is lacking, and that their pending motions for remand to state
court should be decided before transfer. Defendants Tyco Fire
Products, Chemguard and the State of Alaska oppose these motions.
In the panel's order centralizing this litigation, it was
determined that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate
forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF products
used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations
caused the release of PFOS and/or PFOA into local groundwater and
contaminated drinking water. The panel finds that the said actions
share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs,
the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human
health and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to
migrate in groundwater supplies.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 3, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3FrUajy
MIKE DEWINE: Kevin Simon Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE HONORABLE REVEREND
KEVIN L. SIMON, ET AL., v. GOVERNOR MIKE DEWINE, ET AL., Case No.
4:21-cv-02267-JRA (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the
Class consisting of thousands of persons located throughout the
United States.
The class includes Black voters in Mahoning County, Ohio, of Black
voters previously certified as a class in Armour v. Ohio, 775, F.
Supp. 1044 (6th Cir. 1998).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32iQsdH
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Percy Squire, Esq.
PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
341 S. Third Street, Suite 10
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6528
E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com
MK CUISINE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA OLIBARES and ADAM RUSSELL, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the class v. MK CUISINE GLOBAL LLC,
XYST, LLC, PLANT BASED HOLDINGS, LLC, BELGA CORP, d/b/a XYST,
PLANT-BASED PIZZA NEW YORK LLC, d/b/a DOUBLE ZERO, d/b/a 00+CO A&D
WINE CORP, d/b/a PLANT FOOD + WINE, d/b/a BAR VERDE, CJFM LLC,
d/b/a SESTINA, HUNGRY ANGELINA DUMBO LLC, d/b/a HUNGRY ANGELINA,
MKCPBAY LLC, d/b/a SUTRA, PLANT-BASED RESTAURANT EAST 4TH LLC,
d/b/a SENTIO, MATTHEW KENNEY, YVES JADOT, DAVID JADOT, CHRISTOHE
JADOT, RAYMOND AZZI, and KHALIL SALIBA, Case No. 1:21-cv-10694
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages due to
invalid tip credit; unlawfully retained gratuities; compensation
for improperly deducted meal credits; liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Plaintiff Olibares further alleges that, pursuant to the New York
State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law (NYHRL) and New York
City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), she is entitled to recover from
Defendants for creating and fostering a hostile work environment
through persistent sexual harassment against her.
MK Cuisine is a restaurant and bar services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Settlement in Kennedy Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA KENNEDY, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, v. MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA,
INC., and BRENT HAMILL, Case No. 1:19-cv-01199-CMA-STV (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge Christine M. Arguello entered an order granting
plaintiff's unopposed motion for final settlement approval as
follows:
The parties' Settlement Agreement creates a Settlement Fund of
$1,595,000.00. After deducting administration costs, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and the service awards for the
Plaintiffs, class members will each receive a pro rata share of the
Settlement Fund based on (1) the number of miles they drove during
the settlement period and (2) whether they filed an opt-in form in
this lawsuit.
A. The Court hereby certifies the following Rule 23
settlement class:
"All current and former Delivery Drivers employed by
Mountainside Pizza, Inc., from April 1, 2016 through May
5, 2021 (the "Class Period") who do not exclude
themselves, with the exception of those Delivery Drivers
who settle claims in Nelson v. Mountainside Pizza, Inc. to
the extent that those claims were released through
February 10, 2017."
The Settlement Class meets all of the requirements for
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(3) for purposes of settlement. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) is satisfied because there are
2,227 class members, and thus, joinder is impracticable.
B. The parties' settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Rule 23(e) requires court approval for a class action
settlement so that it is procedurally and substantively
fair, reasonable, and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).
C. Fees, Expenses, and service awards
The Plaintiff's Counsel asks the Court to approve an
attorneys' fees award of one-third of the Settlement Fund,
i.e., $531,666.67. The Defendants do not object to the
requested fee award. In granting preliminary approval, the
Court provisionally approved Plaintiff's Counsel's request
for fees and costs, and explained that the fees and costs
would be finally approved after taking into account any
objections and argument at the final fairness hearing. The
Notice period is closed, and no class members objected to
the settlement or the requested fees and costs.
The Court also grants Plaintiff's Counsel's request for
reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of
$38,708.79 and approves the claims administration costs of
$19,999.02 to date as fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The Court also approves the request for service awards in
the amount of $8,000 to Amanda Kennedy and $2,000 to
Ginger Dally. These plaintiffs provided valuable insight
to Class Counsel throughout the case, and their efforts
resulted in substantial payments to a class of over 2,000
minimum wage pizza delivery drivers. The requested service
awards are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court grants
Plaintiffs' request for service awards in the amount set
forth.
This is a wage and hour lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of
pizza delivery drivers who worked at the Domino's Pizza stores
allegedly owned and operated by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 24, 2019. On June 28,
2019, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings to
explore settlement of this action. On July 2, 2019, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion.
The Court granted the parties' request for a stay, but declined to
approve the parties' proposed notice. The parties were unable to
reach a settlement during the initial stay. The parties then
briefed a number of issues, including a motion to dismiss,
cross-motions for summary judgment, and a motion to send notice,
among others. On August 26, 2020, the Court granted Defendants
motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's Motion for
summary judgment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EnG0Pa at no extra charge.[CC]
NCR CORP: Appeals Denial of Motion for New Trial in Meadows Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NCR Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled MICHAEL MEADOWS, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NCR CORPORATION
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06221, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The lawsuit is brought as a class action for violation of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Act under Rule 23, and as a nationwide
collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant improperly failed to pay Plaintiff and
class members all compensation rightfully due, including but not
limited to, overtime pay, time spent working off the clock before
and after the start of their scheduled shifts.
The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees who currently work, or who worked as
"customer engineers," "technicians" or any other similarly titled
position at any time during the applicable statutory periods for
the Defendant.
A jury found in Meadows's favor, concluding that Meadows worked
1,560 hours of unpaid compensable overtime during a six-year span.
Contending that the jury's verdict is at odds with the manifest
weight of the evidence, NCR moves for a new trial under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 59(a).
On November 15, 2021, Defendant's motion for a new trial was
denied.
The Defendant now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as NCR Corporation v. Michael
Meadows, Case No. 21-3309, in the US Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, filed on December 14, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript information sheet is due by December 28, 2021;
and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before January 24, 2022 for
NCR Corporation.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant NCR CORPORATION is represented by:
Paul Whitfield Hughes, Esq.
MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
500 N. Capitol Street, N.W.
The McDermott Building
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 756-8981
Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL MEADOWS, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
NESTLE HEALTH: Foster Sues Over Mislabeled IBgard Oil Capsules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc.,Case No.
1:21-cv-01360-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2021) alleges that
IBgard brand has misleading representations.
According to the complaint, the relevant front label
representations include "Clinically Proven to Help Relieve
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) Symptoms" (left), "A Medical Food
for the Dietary Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome" (right),
and a gold seal relating to the Product's approval by doctors.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established guidance to
assist the pharmaceutical industry and investigators who are
developing drugs for the treatment of IBS. IBS diagnosis and
assessment of clinical status depend mainly on an evaluation of
signs and symptoms that are known to the patient. The studies upon
which Defendant's claims that the Product is "Clinically Proven"
fail to meet the FDA's criteria, the lawsuit adds.
Nestle Health manufactures, labels, markets, and sells peppermint
oil capsules promoted as a treatment for irritable bowel syndrome
("IBS") under the IBgard brand ("Product").
Allegedly, the value of the Product that plaintiff purchased was
materially less than its value as represented by defendant. The
Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers.
Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
OMAZE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 22, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andreas Knuttel, et al.,
v. Omaze, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-09034-SB-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. entered a case management order as
follows:
-- Jury Trial set for: Feb. 6, 2023
-- Final Pretrial Conference Jan 20, 2023
and Hearing on Motions in
Limine set for:
-- Motion to Amend Pleadings/Add Feb. 18, 2022
Parties (Hearing Deadline):
-- Non-Expert Discovery cut-off: Sept. 16, 2022
-- Discovery Motion Hearing Deadline: Oct. 14, 2022
-- Non-Discovery Motion Hearing Oct. 28, 2022
Deadline:
-- Motion for Class Certification due: April 22, 2022
-- Motion for Class Certification June 3, 2022
Hearing Deadline:
-- Settlement Conference Deadline: Nov. 14, 2022
-- Post-Settlement Status Conference Nov. 25, 2022
set for:
-- Status Report due by: Nov. 18, 2022
-- Trial Filings (First Set) Dec. 23, 2022
Deadline:
-- Trial Filings (Second Set) Jan. 6, 2023
Deadline:
Omaze is an American for-profit fundraising company which partners
with charities in fundraising events.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3muOygX at no extra charge.[CC]
OREGANO'S PIZZA: Fox Class Action Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Fox, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Oregano's Pizza Bistro, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-02099-DLR (D. Ariz., Dec. 10, 2021) is a collective action
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against the Defendant for violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff
or other salaried Manager in Training (MITs) one and a half their
regular rate for hours worked over 40 each week. The Defendant has
deprived the Plaintiff and other MITs of regular wages and overtime
compensation for all hours worked. The Defendant knew or showed
reckless disregard for whether its actions violated the FLSA, added
the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorney's fees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Gardner Case Pending Resolution in Maney
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER GARDNER; 1,700 JOHN
DOES; and all others similarly situated, v. KATE BROWN, Governor of
Oregon; COLETTE S. PETERS, Director of Oregon Department of
Corrections; OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY ("OHA"); and 100 JOHN DOES;
all named defendants are sued in their individual and official
capacities, Case No. 2:21-cv-01256-SB (D. Or.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order for a stay of the Gardner case pending
resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney.
The Defendants move to stay this case pending the resolution of the
motion for class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al.,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00570.
This motion relates to the ongoing Covid-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") and/or related persons in
the District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay
of most federal cases that could fit within the putative classes of
plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for class
certification in Maney.
The Defendants says that a brief stay in this matter is appropriate
pending the resolution of the class certification issues in Maney.
The plaintiffs in the Maney matter bring claims under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983, alleging that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to plaintiffs' health by failing to adequately protect
them from heightened exposure to Covid-19 by, among other things,
implementation and enforcement of mask requirements, proper
sanitization and disinfection, and implementation and enforcement
of proper quarantines and social distancing.
The Maney plaintiffs assert class action allegations under FRCPs
23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and, in the alternative, 23(c)(4).
The Maney plaintiffs seek to certify the following putative
classes:
(1) a damages class that is composed of individuals that have
been housed in ODOC facilities on or after February 1,
2020 and have tested positive or otherwise have been
diagnosed with Covid-19; and
(2) a wrongful death class consisting of the estates of
adults incarcerated at ODOC facilities continuously since
February 1, 2020 who died on or after March 8, 2020 and
for whom Covid-19 caused or contributed to their death.
The motion seeks to certify a damages class and a wrongful death
class. Like the plaintiffs in Maney, Plaintiff is incarcerated at
ODOC.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jpl9yL at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 947-4700
Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Faces Somogyi Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERGELY SOMOGYI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS INC., GARY S. GILLHEENEY, SR.,
and DAVID C. FRANCISCO, Case No. 1:21-cv-06845 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10,
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 Organogenesis securities between
March 17, 2021 and October 11, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking
to recover damages caused by the 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, against the
Company and certain of its top officials.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Organogenesis improperly billed the federal government
for its Affinity and PuraPly XT products by, among other things,
setting the price for those products multiple times higher than
similar products; (ii) the Company improperly induced doctors to
use its Affinity and PuraPly XT products through lucrative
reimbursements; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, the
Company's revenue and profits derived from its Affinity and PuraPly
XT products were at least in substantial part unsustainable; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times, the lawsuit says.
On October 12, 2021, an anonymous short report addressing
Organogenesis was published on Value Investors Club, an online
website where investors share investment ideas (the "VIC Report").
The VIC Report alleged, among other issues, that the Company has
been improperly billing the federal government for $250 million
annually. The VIC Report also alleged that the Company had set the
price for its new wound covering, Affinity, "exorbitantly high,"
which Medicare reimbursed, while making the product lucrative for
doctors to use through large rebates, and that the Company employed
a similar tactic for its new PuraPly XT product, added the suit.
On this news, Organogenesis' stock price fell $1.70 per share, or
14.11%, to close at $10.35 per share on October 12, 2021.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Organogenesis is a regenerative medicine company that develops,
manufactures, and commercializes solutions for the advanced wound
care and surgical and sports medicine markets in the U.S. The
Company's products include, among others, "Affinity" and "PuraPly
XT". Affinity is a wound covering product used to support the
treatment of a variety of wound sizes and types. PuraPly XT is an
antimicrobial barrier used for a broad variety of wound types.
Affinity and PuraPly XT sales are reflected in the Company's
results for its Advanced Wound Care products and its and Surgical &
Sports Medicine products.
Organogenesis is a regenerative medicine company that develops,
manufactures, and commercializes solutions for the advanced wound
care and surgical and sports medicine markets in the U.S. The
Company's products include, among others, "Affinity" and "PuraPly
XT". Affinity is a wound covering product used to support the
treatment of a variety of wound sizes and types. PuraPly XT is an
antimicrobial barrier used for a broad variety of wound types.
The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq
James M. LoPiano, Esq
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 303-1964
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
OUTSOURCE RECEIVABLES: Harris Sues Over Unfair Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUTHY A. HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. OUTSOURCE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-01273 (W.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021) is a class
action complaint for statutory damages and declaratory relief
arising from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), which prohibits debt collectors from
engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.
According to the complaint, sometime prior to September 1, 2021,
the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation debt to
Catholic Health System (CHS). The CHS obligation arose out of a
transaction, in which money, property, insurance or services, which
are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal,
family or household purposes.
The Plaintiff incurred the CHS obligation by obtaining goods and
services, which were primarily for personal, family and household
purposes. She did not incur the CHS obligation for business
purposes, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff contends that she and others similarly situated have
suffered harm redressable under the FDCPA as a direct result of the
abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices.
OCM is a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Faces Wiley Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA WILEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PAYSAFE LIMITED f/k/a FOLEY TRASIMENE ACQUISITION CORP.
II, RICHARD N. MASSEY, BRYAN D. COY, PHILIP MCHUGH, and ISMAIL
(IZZY) DAWOOD, Case No. 1:21-cv-10611 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021) is
a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Paysafe securities between December 7, 2020 and
November 10, 2021, inclusive, pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
FTAC was a special purpose acquisition 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 December 7, 2020, FTAC announced that it and Paysafe Group
Holdings Limited ("Legacy Paysafe") entered into a definitive
agreement and plan of merger, and that upon closing of the
transaction the newly combined company will operate as Paysafe with
its shares list on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the
symbol PSFE.
On March 30, 2021, Paysafe announced that it had completed the
merger and that Paysafe was the surviving, public entity.
On November 11, 2021, before the market opened, Paysafe announced
that it was revising its revenue guidance for the full year 2021
downward from a range of $1,530-$1,550 to a range of $1,470-$1,480.
Paysafe attributed the revision to "gambling regulations and
softness in key European markets and performance challenges
impacting the Digital Wallet segment" and "the modified scope and
timing of new eCommerce customer agreements relative to the
Company's original expectations for these agreements."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.03 per share, or
more than 40%, to close at $4.24 per share on November 11, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly 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 that Paysafe was being negatively impacted by gambling
regulations in key European markets.
As a result of the Defendants' 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.
Ms. Wiley purchased Paysafe securities during the Class Period, and
suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law
violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material.
Paysafe provides digital commerce solutions. Paysafe claims that
its solutions extend well beyond the card-based payments
functionality of traditional payment vendors by providing the
advanced capabilities of digital wallets, alternative payment
methods (APMs) and digital currency transactions. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
PERMANENT GENERAL: Connor Auto Policy Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORINE L. CONNOR, and
MYRTLE E. PUGH, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, v. PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORP., Case No.
9:20-cv-81979-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"All citizens residing in the State of Florida, who,
within five years of the filing of this action, were (1)
insured under an auto policy sold or issued by Permanent
General containing the same or similar "Refund of Premium"
provision under the policy's "Cancellation and Non-
Renewal" section as found in Plaintiffs Connor's and
Pugh's policies, and who (2) had their policies cancelled
at the insured's request, and who (3) had paid a premium
that was held by Permanent General and still unearned on
the effective date of cancellation;"
2. appointing them as class representative; and
3. appointing Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz LLP, Irby Law LLC
and Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. as
Class Counsel.
It is undisputed that PGAC charged "Short Rate Cancellation
Premiums" to its Florida insureds under uniform insurance policies
-- perfectly fitting a class action. That PGAC will contest this
case on the merits is of minimal consideration -- the question is
whether the defenses can be addressed on a class-wide basis, which
they can, the lawsuit says.
PGAC markets, sells, and underwrites non-standard automobile
insurance throughout Florida and the United States. PGAC is
commonly known as "The General" in the consumer market, and a
majority of PGAC's sales are made to customers either online or
telephonically.
As part of its widespread marketing efforts to attract customers of
non-standard automobile insurance, PGAC's advertising emphasizes
the availability of low-cost, state-minimum automobile liability
coverage with an affordable down payment and the availability of
monthly premium payments.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ssPnKR
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
James M. Terrell, Esq.
Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com
rgm@mtattorneys.com
jterrell@mtattorneys.com
cgipson@mtattorneys.com
- and -
Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
Zachary D. Ludens, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 SE 6th Street Suite 2900
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
ZLudens@zpllp.com
medmondson@zpllp.com
mlomastro@zpllp.com
- and -
R. Brent Irby, Esq.
IRBY LAW, LLC
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205)936-2203
E-mail: brent@irbylaw.net
PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Faces Taracevicz ERISA Class Suit Over ESOP
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN TARACEVICZ, on behalf of himself, the WESTERN GLOBAL
AIRLINES, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, and all other
similarly situated individuals v. PRUDENT FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC,
MIGUEL PAREDES, WESTERN GLOBAL AIRLINES, INC., THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF WESTERN GLOBAL AIRLINES, INC., JAMES K. NEFF, CARMIT
P. NEFF, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1 to 5, Case No. 2:21-cv-09615
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 13, 2021) is class action complaint seeking
plan-wide relief on behalf of the Western Global Airlines, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) and on behalf of a class of
participants (and their beneficiaries) vested in the ESOP pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
In June 2020, the Seller Defendants created the Western Global ESOP
for the purpose of purchasing 37.5% of the Sellers' private Western
Global stock. Shortly following its creation, Defendants caused the
ESOP to purchase 375,000 shares of Company stock from the Seller
Defendants at an inflated price of $510 million or $1,360 per
share.
The newly created ESOP did not have any money to purchase the
Western Global stock from the Sellers, so the ESOP borrowed the
entire purchase price from the Company.
Western Global, in turn, lacked sufficient money to lend the ESOP
the full $510 million purchase price. To raise those funds, the
Company issued approximately $350 million in junk bonds. The
Company originally offered the bonds at an interest rate of
approximately 8.25%. That interest rate, however, turned out to be
insufficient to attract investors, forcing the Company to raise the
interest rate above 9%, well above the usual rate at which a
company would seek to borrow money to finance an ESOP transaction,
says the suit.
Ultimately third-party demand for the junk bonds was insufficient
to fund the ESOP Transaction and Jim Neff ended up purchasing a
majority of the junk bonds, the lawsuit added.
Plaintiff Taracevicz has been a Plan participant. He is employed at
Western Global as a pilot. He is a First Officer and is vested in
the shares of Western Global in his Plan account.
Defendant PFS is a California Limited Liability Company. PFS bills
itself as a provider of professional Independent Fiduciary/ESOP
Trustee, ERISA compliance consulting, and expert witness services
related to employee benefit plans such as qualified retirement
plans and health and welfare plans. PFS was the trustee of the Plan
at the time of the ESOP Transaction. As trustee, PFS had sole and
exclusive discretion to authorize and negotiate the ESOP
Transaction on behalf of the Plan. The Defendant Miguel Paredes is
the Founder and President of PFS.
Seller Defendants Jim Neff, Carmit P. Neff, and Doe Defendants
collectively sold a 37.5% interest in Western Global to the ESOP
for $510 million in 2020.
Defendant Jim Neff is and was at the time of the ESOP Transaction
the Founder and CEO of Western Global and a member of the Board of
Directors. He was also a selling shareholder in the ESOP
Transaction. On information and belief, he may be found in this
District, where he has conducted business with the Trustee.
Defendant Carmit P. Neff was at the time of the ESOP Transaction a
Director of Western Global. He was a selling shareholder in the
ESOP Transaction. On information and belief, he may be found in
this District, where he has conducted business with the
Trustee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter K. Stris, Esq.
Rachana A. Pathak, Esq.
Douglas D. Geyser, Esq.
John Stokes, Esq.
STRIS & MAHER LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 995-6800
Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
E-mail: pstris@stris.com
rpathak@stris.com
dgeyser@stris.com
jstokes@stris.com
- and -
Tillman J. Breckenridge
1717 K Street Northwest, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 800-6030
E-mail: tbreckenridge@stris.com
- and -
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com
dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Faces Huq Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
AHMED HUQ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY AFRICA LTD. f/k/a LUND
ENTERPRISES CORP., JAMES JAY PARK, SCOT EVANS, IAN D. BROWN, CARLOS
ESCRIBANO, SHIRAZ DHANANI, MARK GERLITZ, JAMES GRANATH, CLAIRE
PREECE, NDAPEWOSHALI SHAPWANALE, CHRIS GILMOUR, and SINDILA MWIYA,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06864 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2021) seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the 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 suit is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
ReconAfrica between February 28, 2019 and September 7, 2021, both
dates inclusive.
The Defendants allegedly violated section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and
Rule 10b-5 in that they: employed devices, schemes and artifices to
defraud; made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to
state material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading; and/or engaged in acts, practices and a course of
business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon Plaintiff and
others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of the
Company's securities during the Class Period.
The Defendants acted with scienter in that they knew that the
public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name
of the Company were materially false and misleading; knew that such
statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the
investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated, or
acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or
documents as primary violations of the securities laws. These
Defendants by their control over, and/or receipt and/or
modification of the Company's allegedly materially misleading
statements, and/or their associations with the Company which made
them privy to confidential proprietary information concerning the
Company, participated in the alleged fraudulent scheme, added the
suit.
The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.
Defendant ReconAfrica purports to engage in the identification,
exploration, and development of oil and/or gas assets in Namibia
and Botswana, including in the Kalahari Desert and other fragile
areas. Defendant ReconAfrica purports to hold a 90% interest in a
petroleum exploration license that covers an area of approximately
25,341.33 km 2 located in Namibia; and 100% working interest in a
petroleum license, which covers an area of 9,921 km 2 located in
northwestern Botswana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Case Management Order Entered in CIS Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., and ALLIED SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00359-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge entered a case
management order as follows:
-- Motion to Join Parties due by: March 21, 2022
-- Discovery Completion due by: Dec. 12, 2022
-- Class Certification Motions
-- The deadline for filing any April 29, 2022
motion for class certification:
-- Any response in opposition shall June 30, 2022
be filed no later than:
-- Any reply shall be filed no July 28, 2022
later than:
-- Jury Trial set for: March 13, 2023
-- Pretrial Conference set for: March 9, 2023
Republic Services is an American waste disposal company whose
services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste
transfer, and waste disposal, recycling, and energy services. It is
the second largest provider of waste disposal in the United States
after Waste Management Corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EmY2AP at no extra charge.[CC]
RESCARE INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to April 18, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANA DIAZ, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, v. RESCARE, INC., a
Kentucky Corporation; RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Kentucky
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-01333-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting their joint motion to extend deadlines as
follows:
Current Proposed New
Deadline Deadline
-- Non-Expert Discovery Jan. 31, 2022 March 1, 2022
Cutoff:
-- Motion for Class Feb. 15, 2022 April 18, 2022
Certification
Deadline:
-- Defendant's Response March 30, 2022 May 31, 2022
to Motion for Class
Cert:
-- Plaintiff's Reply in April 28, 2022 June 29, 2022
support of Motion
for Class Cert:
-- Hearing on Motion for May 30, 2022 July 29, 2022
Class Certification:
ResCare provides services and support to seniors, people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities, children, and job
seekers.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qiKTUw at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
Farrah Grant, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
farrah@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Phil J. Montoya, Jr., Esq.
Matthew A. Boyd, Esq.
Ronald G. Polly, Jr., Esq.
HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG, LLP
445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1651
Telephone: (213) 486-8000
Facsimile: (213) 486-8080
303 Peachtree Street, N.E. -- Suite 4000
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 614-7400
Facsimile: (404) 614-7500
E-mail: pmontoya@hpylaw.com
rpolly@hpylaw.com
mboyd@hpylaw.com
RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ripley Entertainment
Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Ripley Entertainment
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10595 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ripley Entertainment Inc. -- https://www.ripleyentertainment.com/
-- is an entertainment and edutainment holding company owned by the
Jim Pattison Group of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Faces Rosa Suit Over Illegal Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM RAFAEL ROSA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-10570 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021) is a class action complaint
for statutory damages and declaratory relief arising from the
Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive,
deceptive and unfair practices.
According to the complaint, sometime prior to September 1, 2021,
the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation debt to
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (BOA). The BOA obligation arose out of a
transaction, in which money, property, insurance or services, which
are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal,
family or household purposes.
The Plaintiff allegedly incurred the BOA obligation by obtaining
goods and services, which were primarily for personal, family and
household purposes. Ther Plaintiff did not incur the BOA obligation
for business purposes, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff contends that she and others similarly situated have
suffered harm redressable under the FDCPA as a direct result of the
abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices.
R&R is a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
SIDWELL AIR: Roberts Suit Seeks Wage & Overtime for Courier Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAKOTA ROBERTS and DAWN MARIE HACKER, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. SIDWELL AIR FREIGHT, INC, and DHL
EXPRESS (USA) INC., d/b/a DHL EXPRESS, Case No. 3:21-cv-05912 (W.D.
Wash., Dec. 14, 2021) alleges that Defendants failed to comply with
applicable wage and hour laws and to pay non‐exempt Courier
Drivers all wages owed, including overtime, for work performed in
delivering hundreds of DHL packages each day and meeting DHL's
delivery needs throughout Washington and other states.
The Plaintiffs seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), and Washington state law.
Defendant Sidwell provides last‐mile delivery services to
Defendant DHL. The Defendants jointly employ non‐exempt Courier
Drivers, such as Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Collective
and Classes, to transport packages from DHL's facilities to DHL's
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Ryan Tack‐Hooper, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
ryan@terrellmarshall.com
SIMMONS BANK: Wilkins Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHUNDA WILKINS and DAVID
WATSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. SIMMONS BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00116-DPM (E.D. Ark.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class and a Rule 23(b)
(2) declaratory and injunctive relief class;
2. appointing them as class representatives; and
3. appointing their counsel as class counsel for the Class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), for the following Class:
"All persons who, within the applicable statute of
limitations period, were charged Retry Fees -- NSF Fees or
Overdraft Fees -- on an item that had already been subject
to an NSF Fee in a Simmons checking account."
Simmons Bank is a bank with operations in Arkansas, Kansas,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3stPJkz
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-0773
E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
Franklin@WebbLLC.com
- and -
William F. Burns, III, Esq.
WATSON BURNS, PLLC
253 Adams Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 529-7996
E-mail: fwatson@watsonburns.com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011
E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
casey@consumerprotectionlegal.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37204
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
SLEEP NUMBER: Faces Steamfitters Over Common Stock's Inflated Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION & RETIREMENT SECURITY FUNDS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION, SHELLY R. IBACH and DAVID R.
CALLEN, Case No. (D. Minn., Dec. 14, 2021) is a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Sleep Number common stock
between February 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021, inclusive seeking to
pursue remedies against Sleep Number and certain of the Company's
current senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
During the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made false and
misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market
and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of
Sleep Number common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on
Class Period purchasers of Sleep Number common stock by
misrepresenting the value of the Company’s business and prospects
by concealing the supply chain shortage existing in the Company’s
supply chain.
As defendants' misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct became
apparent to the market, the price of the Company’s stock fell
precipitously as the prior artificial inflation came out of the
stock’s price. As a result of their purchases of Sleep Number
common stock during the Class Period, plaintiff and other members
of the Class suffered economic loss, i.e., damages, under the
federal securities laws, added the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased Sleep Number common stock during the Class
Period and has been damaged thereby.
Defendant Sleep Number is a Minnesota corporation and is
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Company’s common
stock is listed on the NasdaqGS ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol
"SNBR." The Company was formerly known as Select Comfort
Corporation but changed its name to Sleep Number Corporation in
November 2017.
The Company sells its products directly to consumers through
retail, online, phone and chat as well as through wholesale. As of
January 2021, the Company operated over 600 retail stores in all 50
states, with 64 of the Company’s stores located in Texas and
Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Richard Gonnello, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
- and -
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
Domenico Minerva, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
TIFFS TREATS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tiffs Treats
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tiffs Treats
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10605 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tiff's Treats -- https://www.cookiedelivery.com/ -- is an operator
of a line of bakery stores that produce classic, baked-to-order
cookies, and brownies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
TIVITY HEALTH: Sheet Metal Seeks Extension for Class Cert. Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Lead Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33, Cleveland
District, Pension Fund files an unopposed renewed motion to amend
schedule for completing briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks a one-month extension to the
deadline by which it must file its class certification reply brief,
to January 21, 2022, to ensure the record is further developed to
allow for complete briefing on issues related to price impact that
have been raised by the Defendants in their opposition brief, filed
November 30, 2021.
Tivity Health is a provider of health improvement, fitness and
social engagement solutions. Tivity Health is headquartered in
Franklin, Tennessee with offices in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
and Chandler, Arizona.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mtLC41 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Sara B. Polychron, Esq.
Caroline M. Robert, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
spolychron@rgrdlaw.com
crobert@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN
& GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Michael E. Heffernan, Esq.
ALLOTTA FARLEY CO., L.P.A.
2222 Centennial Road
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: (419) 535-0075
Facsimile: (419) 535-1935
E-mail: mheffernan@allottafarley.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Singh Seeks 3rd Circuit Review in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jaswinder Singh filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JASWINDER SINGH, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3-16-cv-03044, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Plaintiff Jaswinder Singh was a driver with the rideshare company
Uber who alleges individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated New Jersey drivers, that Uber misclassified them
as independent contractors, thereby depriving them of overtime pay
and other benefits afforded to employees.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 6, 2021, Judge
Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted Uber's motion to compel arbitration.
Mr. Singh now seeks a review of this order. Additionally, he
requests to review Court's Order dated November 23, 2021, granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying as moot his
motion to certify class.
The appellate case is captioned as Jaswinder Singh v. Uber
Technologies Inc., Case No. 21-3234, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 6, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JASWINDER SINGH, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, is represented by:
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER
1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 265-4620
E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
Defendant-Appellee UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. is represented by:
Paul C. Lantis, Esq.
William J. Simmons, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
1601 Cherry Street
Three Parkway, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 402-3000
E-mail: plantis@littler.com
wsimmons@littler.com
VIBRAM COMMERCE: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vibram Commerce LLC.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Vibram Commerce LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10609 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vibram Commerce -- https://us.vibram.com/ -- provides various
shopping, e-commerce and community services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
VOLKSWAGEN AG: $42MM Settlement Hearing on March 7, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging
that consumers sustained economic losses because they purchased or
leased vehicles from Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., VW Credit, Inc., Audi AG, or Audi of America, LLC
(collectively "Volkswagen") containing allegedly defective airbags
manufactured by Takata Corporation and its affiliates ("Takata").
The Settlement includes certain vehicles made by Volkswagen (the
"Subject Vehicles"). Volkswagen denies any and all allegations of
wrongdoing and the Court has not decided who is right.
Owners or lessees of Subject Vehicles who have already received a
separate recall notice for their Volkswagen or Audi vehicle and
have not yet had their Takata airbag repaired should do so as soon
as possible. When recalled Takata airbags deploy, they may, in
very rare cases and under certain circumstances, spray metal debris
toward vehicle occupants and may cause serious injury. However,
some Volkswagen and Audi vehicles may be recalled for repair at a
later date. Please see
www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/takata-recall-spotlight#for-consumers-overview
for further details about which vehicles have been recalled and, if
so, what owners or lessees should do.
The Settlement includes the following persons and entities:
* Owners or lessees, as of November 10, 2021, of a Subject
Vehicle that was distributed for sale or lease in the United States
or any of its territories or possessions, and
* Former owners or lessees of a Subject Vehicle that was
distributed for sale or lease in the United States or any of its
territories or possessions, who, between February 9, 2016 and
November 10, 2021, sold or returned, pursuant to a lease, a Subject
Vehicle.
A full list of the Subject Vehicles can be found at
www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com. The Settlement does not involve
claims of personal injury.
Volkswagen has agreed to a Settlement with a value of approximately
$42 million, including a 20% credit for the Enhanced Rental
Car/Loaner Program. The Settlement Funds will be used to pay for
Settlement benefits and cover the costs of the Settlement over an
approximately four-year period.
The Settlement offers several benefits for Class Members, including
(1) payments for certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred related to
a Takata airbag recall of a Subject Vehicle, (2) a Rental
Car/Loaner Program while certain Subject Vehicles are awaiting
repair, (3) an Outreach Program to maximize completion of the
recall remedy, (4) additional cash payments to Class Members from
residual settlement funds, if any remain, and (5) a Customer
Support Program to help with repairs associated with replacement
airbag inflators. The Settlement Website explains each of these
benefits in detail.
Class Members must file a claim to receive a payment during the
first four years of the Settlement. If a Class Member still owns
or leases a Subject Vehicle, they must also bring it to an
authorized dealership for the recall remedy, as directed by a
recall notice, if they have not already done so. Visit the website
and file a claim online or download one and file by mail. The
deadline to file a claim will be at least one year from the date
the Settlement is finalized. All deadlines will be posted on the
website when they are known.
Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement
must exclude themselves by February 14, 2022. If Class Members do
not exclude themselves, they will release any claims they may have
against Volkswagen and the Released Parties, in exchange for
certain settlement benefits. The potential available benefits are
more fully described in the Settlement, available at the Settlement
Website. Class Members may object to the Settlement by February 14,
2022. Class Members cannot both exclude themselves from, and
object to, the Settlement. The Long Form Notice for the Settlement
available on www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com explains how Class
Members can exclude themselves or object. The Court will hold a
fairness hearing on March 7, 2022 to consider whether to finally
approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees of up to
30% of the total Settlement Amount. Class Members may appear at the
fairness hearing, either by themselves or through an attorney they
hire, but don't have to. For more information, including the
relief, eligibility and release of claims, in English or Spanish,
call 1-888-735-5596 or visit www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com.
URL: www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
VOYA FINANCIAL: Faces Ravarino ERISA Suit Over Retirement Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RAVARINO, WILLIAM KENAN KELLY, HOLLY A. SMITH, JEANA ROSE
BOLLINGER, JOHANNA LANGILLE, LAURA COMPLAINT SHUR, LISA BISHOP
LAMBERT, ALAN HOUSE, ERIKA HALLBERG and RYAN FUHRIMAN, on Behalf of
Themselves, the Voya 401(k) Savings Plan, and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., VOYA INSTITUTIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, VOYA RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, VOYA
INVESTMENT TRUST COMPANY, VOYA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, VOYA
FINANCIAL PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, VOYA FINANCIAL PLAN
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:21-cv-01658 (D.
Conn., Dec. 14, 2021) is about a company's self-dealing at the
expense of its own workers' retirement savings.
The Defendants were required by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), to act solely in the
interest of the Plan's participants when making decisions with
respect to selecting, removing, replacing, and monitoring the
Plan's investments. By choosing and then retaining the Voya Funds
as a core part of the Plan's investments to the exclusion of
alternative investments available in the 401(k)-plan marketplace,
the Defendants enriched themselves at the expense of their own
employees, the lawsuit says.
The Defendants also allegedly breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to consider the prudence of retaining certain other
deficient investments that were inappropriate for the Plan during
the Relevant Period, and by failing to monitor the Plan's
administrative fees. The Defendants committed further statutory
violations by engaging in conflicted transactions expressly
prohibited by ERISA.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Plan and its
participants and their beneficiaries for losses to the Plan and for
disgorgement of unlawful fees and profits taken by Defendants from
December 2015 through the present.
The Plaintiffs are participants in the Voya 401(k) Savings Plan.
Voya is a financial, retirement, investment and insurance company.
Voya offers its products and services throughout the United States,
including in this District, through a group of financial
intermediaries, one of which is Voya Services Company, the Plan
sponsor.
The Plan is an employee benefit plan within the meaning of
ERISA.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
Colchester, Connecticut 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
gwotkyns@scott-scott.com
tkorkhov@scott-scott.com
- and -
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
Kevin P. Conway, Esq.
Jamie L. Falgout, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
E-mail: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com
kconway@peifferwolf.com
jfalgout@peifferwolf.om
WALGREEN CO: Stevens Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walgreen, Co. The
case is styled as Delenator Stevens, individually on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Walgreen, Co., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10603 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Walgreen Company, doing business as Walgreens --
http://www.walgreens.com/-- is an American company that operates
the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States behind
CVS Health.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
WATERFALL REVENUE: Settineri Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waterfall Revenue
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Settineri, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waterfall Revenue
Group, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services (CCS), Case No.
2:21-mc-00149-JXN (D.N.J., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Waterfall Revenue Group -- https://waterfallrevenuegroup.com/ -- is
a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
WB STUDIO: Wilson Seeks Unpaid Wages Under California Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
G. WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WB STUDIO ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
WARNER BROS. TELEVISION, an unknown business entity, and DOE 1
through and including DOE 10, Case No. 2:21-cv-09632 (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 13, 2021) is a class and collective action seeking unpaid
wages, damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs
under the California Labor Code.
Allegedly, Plaintiff worked for Defendants but was not been
properly paid his wages. For example, on or about Wednesday,
November 11, 2020, Plaintiff worked for WBT on a project known as
"The Kominsky Method." After that stint, Plaintiff did not have a
return date to work for Defendants. His wages were due no later
than on Thursday, November 19, 2020. However, his wage statement
was not prepared until on or after December 10, 2020, the lawsuit
says.
Thereafter on December 11, 2020, Plaintiff again worked for
Defendants on a project known as "Lucifer." After that stint,
Plaintiff did not have a return date to work for Defendants. His
wages were due no later than on Thursday, December 17, 2020.
However, his wage statement was not prepared until on or after
January 27, 2021. When Plaintiff ceased working for Defendants, he
was not timely paid all wages accrued. Moreover, Plaintiff was not
provided proper rest and meal periods as required, the suit adds.
WB Studio operates as an entertainment company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
Min Ji Gal, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue 17 th Floor
Glendale CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
mgal@harrisandruble.com
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA & IMWL
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY ROBERTSON and RAY BARNES on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-06652 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 13, 2021) is a collective and class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), the Illinois' Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), Illinois' Wage
Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.
Woodman's Food is a privately owned grocery store chain
headquartered in Janesville, Wisconsin that owns and operated
multiple physical stores and/or locations in multiple States,
including but not limited to the States of Illinois and Wisconsin.
The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an alleged
unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
Plaintiffs and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay for each
hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time
(via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiffs' and all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift,
in-shift, and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the
detriment of said employees and to the benefit of the Defendant, in
violation of the FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
125 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (224) 698-2630
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ZARA USA: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gladys Gonzalez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. ZARA
USA, INC., a New York corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 21STCV43700 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 30, 2021), is brought
against the Defendants for failing to pay the Plaintiff proper
compensation in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was regularly required to work off-the-clock and
perform their job duties without compensation. Moreover, Defendants
engaged in a practice that encouraged and pressured the Plaintiff
to take late, short, interrupted, on-premises. On-call meal breaks
or rest breaks or misses these meal breaks and rest breaks
entirely. The Defendants understood this but would not compensate
the Plaintiff for any of their missed meal breaks or rest periods
throughout their employment. The Defendants had a policy and/or
practice that failed to pay Plaintiff all of their entitled accrued
vacation benefits upon termination. Additionally, the Defendant had
a policy and/or practice that failed to pay Plaintiff and all
Aggrieved Employees all wages owed upon termination including the
overtime wages that were withheld by the Defendants through the
Plaintiff's, and all Aggrieved Employees' employment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee.
The Defendant is clothing company, in the mercantile industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
Andrea M. Fernandez, Esq.
JACKSON APC
2 Venture Plaza, Ste, 240
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone (949) 281-6857
Fax (949) 777-6218
Email: ajackson@jacksonapc.com
afernandez@jacksonapc.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 ***