/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220119.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, January 19, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 8
Headlines
2 AR BROTHERS: Stewart Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
3M COMPANY: Cantrell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Lentz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ACE CASH: Caldera Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
ACTION LOGISTIX: Court Won't Review Denial of Bid to Toss Hood Suit
AD 4 INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADCO DRYWALL: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AHMC SAN GABRIEL: Braswell Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALJ REGIONAL: Marshall Labor Row Settlement Pending after Mediation
ALLTRAN EDUCATION: Lankford Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
AMERICAN BANKERS: Maffei Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN HUTS: Wright Claims Shortchanged on Vehicle Expenses
APPLE INC: Cook Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Proxy Statement, "Misleading," Finger Says
ARRIVAL SA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 22 Deadline
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Dervitz FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
AT&T INC: Argues Age Bias Class Action Barred by Job Pacts
ATLANTA, GA: Denial of Ansley Walk's Bid for Class Cert. Affirmed
BEBE STORES: Hicks Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Florida
BOB BAFFERT: Responds to Bettors' Racketeering Class Action
BRIGHT HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 7 Deadline
BRIGHT HEALTH: Kuznicki Law Reminds of March 7 Deadline
BROWARD HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over October 2021 Cyberattack
BSW GENERAL: Singh Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
BTTR BEAUTY LLC: Denied Avilez Overtime Pay, Meal Breaks
CAL-MAINE FOOD: Second Amended Complaint Pending in W.D. Tex.
CANADA: Mounties Want Supreme Court to Reject RCMP Class Action
CARMAX INC: Bendure Labor Suit Pending in Calif. State Court
CARMAX INC: Miller Labor Suit Underway in Calif. State Court
CARMAX INC: Sabanovich Labor Suit Pending in Calif. State Court
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Morales Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
CHEGG INC: Robbins LLP Reminds of February 21 Deadline
CLARK'S LAWN CARE: Prosser Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
COLONIAL FIRST: March 25 Mediation Deadline Set for Class Action
COMUNIBANC CORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Civista Merger
CONCENTRA INC: Pascal Appeals Dismissal in TCPA Suit to 9th Cir.
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Deutsch Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CONVERSE INC: Faces Class Action Over Meal Breaks, Overtime Pay
DALLY GOODS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DANIEL MARKUS: Lustig Sues Over Retaliation and Public Defamation
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Among Defendants in Price-Fixing Class Action
DB MARKETING: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEERE & CO: Faces Forest River Farms Antitrust Suit in N.D. Ill.
DESIGN TOSCANO: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DING DOCTOR: Chou Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Valles Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
DOORDASH INC: Schwartz Suit Removed to N.D. California
DRUMMAC INC: Gorman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DYLA LLC: Williamson Files Suit in S.D. New York
ELEMENT APOTHEC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EVIDENT ID: Smith Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Grabner Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
EYE NEEDS INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FERRARI NORTH AMERICA: Rose Files Suit in D. New Jersey
FILS UNIQUE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FIRST SOLAR: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
FORD MOTOR: Counsel Awarded $3.5MM in Fees & Costs in Persad Suit
FORD MOTOR: Court Enters Final Approval & Judgment in Persad Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Carmax Recoups $22.6M in Ignition Switch Accord
GOLDMAN SACHS: Lee Sues Over Unlawful Use of Non-Public Info
GOOGLE LLC: Averts Class Action Over Click-Fraud Detection System
GULFPORT ENERGY: Former Executives Avert Securities Class Action
HARTZ HOTEL: Faces Oneal Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline
JOHN DEERE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Tractor Repair Monopoly
JSW STEEL: Polen Sues Over Production Employees' Unpaid Overtime
JUUL LABS: Belmont-Harrison Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ohio
JUUL LABS: Carthage Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Cato-Meridian Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Beaver River Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Dexter Community Says
KESSENICH'S LTD: Makaroff Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Wages
KFORCE INC: Whiteman Sues Over Recruiters' Unpaid Overtime Wages
KOBE STEEL: Class Action Lawsuit Over Auto Parts Quality Settled
KURA SUSHI: Hearing on Initial Settlement Approval Set for May 9
LADERA LENDING: Fabricant Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices
LEE'S SUMMIT: Myers Appeals Conditional Cert. Ruling in Labor Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Charalambous Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Minor League Salaries
MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING: Zutantas Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Ruling in Goyette Suit
NEW YORK CITY, NY: CNS Partners Sues Over Required Vaccination
OAK STREET: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 14 Deadline
OAK STREET: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 11 Deadline
OAK STREET: Gainey McKenna Reminds of March 14 Deadline
OAK STREET: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 14 Deadline
OAK STREET: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 14 Deadline
OM TREE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers/Supervisors
ORVIS COMPANY: Sells and Rents Mailing Lists With Customers' Info
OVH GROUPE: 70 Customers Pursue Class Action Over Data Center Fire
PENSKE TRUCK: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Arkansas
PHARMALLY INTERNATIONAL: Investors' Center Files Class Action
PPL CORPORATION: Mismanaged Retirement Plans, Binder Suit Alleges
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Kuznicki Law Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
REMAX HOLDINGS: Anti-trust Suits Pending in US District Courts
RENO CAB: Pomer Sues Over Taxicab Drivers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
RICHLAND HOLDINGS: Rodgers Sues Over Abusive Collection Practices
RITE AID: Price Rigging Suit Shelved in S.D. Cal. Pending Mediation
RITE AID: Price Rigging Suit Shelved in S.D. Cal. Pending Talks
RITE AID: Settlement for Labor Cases Pending in Calif. Court
RPS HOLDINGS: Appeals Denial of Arbitration Motion in James Suit
RUNNING WAREHOUSE: Gasnick Sues Over Data Breach
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Anti-trust Raps in Various District Courts
SCORES HOLDING: De Oliveira Labor Suit Pending in S.D.N.Y.
SCORES HOLDING: Munoz Labor Suit Discontinued
SHREDHA & SABURI: Benson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Housekeepers
SOURCE ONE: Coronado Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection
SUPPORT SERVICES: Underpays CSRs and SMEs, Gates Suit Alleges
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: West Va. Supreme Ct. Hears Arguments in Fire Suit
TAKATA CORP: Carmax Remains Class Member for Ford Settlement Fund
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Modrak Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
TD ASSET: Siskinds LLP Reminds Investors of April 8 Deadline
UKG INC: Fraga Slams Data Breach
UNITED STATES: Kapilina Beach Homes Residents File Class Action
UNITED STATES: Reduction of Benefits in Michener v. SSA Affirmed
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Approves $10MM Class Action Settlement
VOLVO GROUP: Among Defendants in $175-Bil. Price Fixing Class Suit
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE: Discovery Underway in Merger Litigation
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE: Washtenaw Retirement Sys. Suit Narrowed
WALMART: Women Delivery Drivers File Suit Over Sex Discrimination
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN: $1MM Cy Pres Payout Ordered in Good Suit
WHITE HAWK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mondays Suit Claims
WILDERNESS SPORTS: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ZILLOW GROUP: Kuznicki Law Announces Securities Class Action
*********
2 AR BROTHERS: Stewart Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2 AR Brothers, LLC.
The case is styled as Annamarie Stewart, Merci Carmichael,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. 2 AR
Brothers, LLC, Ashraf Rashed, Case No. 1:21-cv-06899 (N.D. Ill.,
Dec. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
AR Brothers Entertainment -- http://www.arbrothers.net/-- offers
Comedy Writing and providing locally crafted original comedy &
entertainment.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Colby Qualls, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy Suite 510,
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 904-1649
Email: Colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Cantrell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Gordon R. Cantrell, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC,
ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT
CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00046-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 4,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which
would expose end-users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Lentz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Lentz, III, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC,
ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT
CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 4,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
David R. Lewis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.,
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest
to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC.,
CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 4,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
ACE CASH: Caldera Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ace Cash Express
Insurance Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lucina
Caldera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ace Cash Express Insurance Services LLC, Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:22-cv-00330 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
ACE Cash Express -- https://www.acecashexpress.com/ -- is a leading
financial services provider, specializing in short-term consumer
loans, bill pay, and prepaid debit card services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
ACTION LOGISTIX: Court Won't Review Denial of Bid to Toss Hood Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's motion for reconsideration
in the lawsuit titled DARION HOOD, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ACTION LOGISTIX, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20 CV 978 RWS (E.D. Mo.).
Action Logistix sought reconsideration of the Court's order denying
its motion to dismiss the complaint.
Darion Hood filed the class action suit against Action Logistix,
LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),
15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. Action Logistix moved to dismiss
Hood's claims based on Hood's alleged lack of Article III
standing.
On March 25, 2021, District Judge Rodney W. Sippel issued an order
denying Action Logistix's motion to dismiss. Judge Sippel found
that Hood had Article III standing based on Action Logistix's
failure to comply with Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)'s requirement to
furnish Hood with a copy of the subject consumer report and a
summary of rights before Hood's employment offer was withdrawn.
Judge Sippel found that Hood had alleged an injury in fact that was
concrete and particularized because he was deprived of the
opportunity to explain or clarify the information in his consumer
report before his job offer was withdrawn.
Judge Sippel concluded that the informational injury that Hood had
alleged is supported by precedent and is a traditional basis for
lawsuits in this country. The language of Section 1681b(b)(3)(A),
as well as the legislative history of the FCRA, reflects clear
congressional intent to make an individual's inability to review
and respond to the contents of his consumer report before suffering
an adverse employment action a redressable harm.
Several months after the order was entered, Action Logistics filed
a motion to reconsider in light of the United States Supreme
Court's holding in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190
(2021). Action Logistix points out that the TransUnion decision
states that an asserted informational injury that causes no adverse
effects cannot satisfy Article III. TransUnion was a class action
dealing with adverse information included in TransUnion's credit
reports. The Court found that the named plaintiff asserted an
informational injury that caused an adverse effect but that the
rest of the class did not.
Action Logistix contends that Hood has only asserted an
informational injury that did not have an adverse effect by
asserting that he did not receive the subject consumer report and a
summary of rights before his employment offer was withdrawn.
Judge Sippel, however, finds that Hood's complaint contains the
further allegation that if he had been provided with these
documents as required by the FCRA and had been given the
opportunity to view and address what was in the consumer report,
his employment offer may not have been withdrawn. Judge Sippel
points out that the loss of the employment opportunity is the
adverse effect that TransUnion requires to establish standing for
an informational injury.
Whether or not Hood is correct, that he could have changed Action
Logistix's decision, is not the issue at this stage of the
litigation, Judge Sippel notes. The current issue is whether Hood
has alleged sufficient information in his complaint to establish
his standing to pursue his claim. Judge Sippel finds that Hood has
done so. As a result, Judge Sippel will deny Action Logistix's
motion to reconsider the previous order denying its motion to
dismiss.
A few days before Action Logistix filed its motion for
reconsideration, Hood filed a motion for a hearing concerning a
discovery dispute. The motion was not accompanied by a memorandum
in support as required by Local Rule 4.01. Moreover, filing a
motion for a hearing concerning a discovery dispute without more is
not the practice in federal court.
Judge Sippel notes that if Hood seeks to raise a discovery issue he
must file a motion to compel accompanied by a memorandum that
clearly identifies the discovery he seeks, the responses by Action
Logistix that are deemed to be deficient, and the legal cases and
argument in support of his position. A motion for a hearing may be
contained within such a filing. Rather than filing such a
memorandum in support, Hood simply attached his "golden rule"
letter to Action Logistix and a copy of Action Logistix's discovery
responses.
In addition, Hood's motion does not indicate that the parties
actually met and conferred in an attempt to resolve these issues
before filing a motion for a hearing. This is not sufficient, Judge
Sippel holds. However, Judge Sippel says the Court's involvement in
Hood's discovery issues may be unnecessary.
In its response to Hood's motion for a hearing Action Logistix
stated that if its motion for reconsideration is denied, it
believes that good faith negotiations may resolve many or all of
the discovery issues between the parties.
Judge Sippel is confident that the parties can resolve these issues
when they meet and confer. If not, Hood may file an appropriate
motion to compel following the Court's local rules.
Finally, based on the resolution of Action Logistix's motion for
reconsideration, Judge Sippel will issue an amended case management
order to extend the case deadlines.
Accordingly, Defendant Action Logistix's motion for reconsideration
is denied.
Plaintiff Hood's motion for a hearing to resolve a discovery
dispute is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 30,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p855k69 from
Leagle.com.
AD 4 INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AD 4 Inc. The case is
styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AD 4 Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00063-PGG-SDA
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ad4! Group -- https://ad4group.com/ -- is a full service branding
and marketing agency located in Huntsville, Alabama.[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
ADCO DRYWALL: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adco Drywall and
Metal Framing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ramon Martinez
Ramirez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Adco Drywall
and Metal Framing, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00313820-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
13, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."
ADCO -- http://www.adcodrywall.com/-- is a full-service drywall
and metal framing company specializing in the large-scale
production of multi-family units and common areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
AHMC SAN GABRIEL: Braswell Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ruthie Braswell, on behalf of herself, the State
of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. AHMC
San Gabriel Valley Medical Center LP, AHMC Healthcare, Inc., SGVMC
Healthcare, LP, San Gabriel Healthcare, Inc., AHMC Anaheim Regional
Medical Center LP, AHMC Seton Medical Center LLC, AHMC Monterey
Park Hospital, LP, AHMC Greater El Monte Community Hospital LP,
AHMC Garfield Medical Center LP, AHMC Whittier Hospital Medical
Center LP, Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV42872, was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Dec. 28, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-09959-MWF-AGR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Labor/Mgt. Relations.
AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center -- https://www.sgvmc.com/ --
is a general hospital in San Gabriel, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL PC
9440 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
blake@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
mike@crosnerlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey P Fuchsman, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER AND SAVITT LLP
15760 Ventura Blvd., 18th Floor
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 508-3700
Fax: (818) 506-4827
Email: jfuchsman@brgslaw.com
ALJ REGIONAL: Marshall Labor Row Settlement Pending after Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 20, 2021, that an
employment-related suit is still under negotiation for a final
settlement. A mediation was held in March 11, 2021.
On July 31, 2017, a former employee, Donna Marshall, filed a
proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil (a
subsidiary of ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc.) and ALJ. Marshall, a
previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various California
state law employment-related claims against Faneuil. Faneuil has
answered the complaint and removed the matter to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California; however,
Marshall filed a motion to remand the case back to state court,
which has been granted. In connection, an amended complaint was
filed by certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act. Faneuil demurred to the
PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed by the trial court.
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. is a holding company based in New
York.
ALLTRAN EDUCATION: Lankford Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Alltran Education, Inc. The
case is styled as Matthew Lankford, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Alltran Education, Inc., Case No.
6:21-cv-01382-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., Dec. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Alltran Education, Inc. -- https://alltran.com/ -- which also does
business as Enterprise Recovery Systems, Inc., is a debt collection
agency located in Woodridge, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
AMERICAN BANKERS: Maffei Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bankers
Insurance Company of Florida. The case is styled as Arielle Maffei,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American
Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Case No. 1:21-cv-06938 (N.D.
Ill., Dec. 31, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of
Contract.
American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, doing business as
Assurant -- https://www.assurant.com/ -- is a global provider of
risk management products and services with headquarters in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
McWHERRER SCORR BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd
Franklin, TN 37067
Phone: (615) 354-1144
Email: brandon@msb.law
AMERICAN HUTS: Wright Claims Shortchanged on Vehicle Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. American Huts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00009,
(E.D. Ten., January 7, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, costs and a reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of failure to sufficient overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
American Huts owns and operates Pizza Hut franchises in Tennessee
where Wright worked as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver from
approximately July of 2021 until October of 2021. They claim to
have been allegedly misclassified as exempt from overtime, despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per week.
American Hut allegedly took a tip credit from Wright when he was
making deliveries and made him use his own car for deliveries. He
claims that the delivery fee he gets is not enough to cover here
vehicular expenses. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
MIKEL & HAMILL PLLC
620 Lindsay Street, Suite 200
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37403
Tel.: (423) 541-5400
Fax: (423) 541-5401
Email: dmikel@mhemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
APPLE INC: Cook Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Jon Cook, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00313863-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
13, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company that specializes in consumer
electronics, computer software and online services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Proxy Statement, "Misleading," Finger Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE FINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., GARY
A. NEIL, JAYSON DALLAS, OLIVER FETZER, KIERAN T. GALLAHUE, JENNIFER
JARRETT, KATHARINE KNOBIL, AMIT D. MUNSHI, TINA S. NOVA, NAWAL
OUZREN, and STEVEN SCHOCH, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00039-LL-AHG (S.D. Cal., January 12, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of a false and misleading proxy statement by Arena Pharmaceuticals
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in order to
convince Arena stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed
acquisition of the company by Pfizer, Inc. The proxy statement
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Arena's financial projections; and (ii) the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinions provided by Evercore Group L.L.C. and Guggenheim
Securities, LLC, the financial advisors of Arena's Board of
Directors. Unless remedied, Arena's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the proxy statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the proposed
transaction, says the suit.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company, with
its principal executive offices located at 136 Heber Avenue, Suite
204, Park City, Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
- and –
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
ARRIVAL SA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Arrival SA ("Arrival" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ARVL) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 22-cv-00172, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of Arrival stock between November
18, 2020 and November 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violation of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired common
shares of Arrival stock during the Class Period, you have until
February 22, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff
for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Arrival (formerly Arrival Luxembourg S.a.r.l.) was founded in 2015
as a private company headquartered in London, United Kingdom.
Arrival is a manufacturer and distributor of commercial electric
vehicles ("EVs"), including vans, cars, and buses. Arrival develops
vertically integrated technologies and products that create a new
approach to the assembly of EVs. According to Arrival, its
proprietary in-house developed components, materials, software and
robotic technologies, combined with low capital expenditure and
rapidly scalable microfactories, enable Arrival to produce EVs that
are competitively priced to traditional fossil fuel vehicles and
with a substantially lower total cost of ownership for customers.
On March 24, 2021, Arrival consummated a business combination (the
"Merger") with CIIG Merger Corp. ("CIIG"). Prior to its business
combination with Arrival, CIIG was a special purpose acquisition
company, also known as a "blank check" company, incorporated for
the purpose of entering into a merger, share exchange, asset
acquisition, share purchase, recapitalization, reorganization, or
similar business combination with one or more businesses or
entities. Upon the consummation of the Merger, CIIG changed its
name from CIIG to Arrival Vault US Inc.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company would record a
substantially greater net loss and adjusted EBITDA loss in the
third quarter of 2021 compared to the third quarter of 2020; (ii)
the Company would experience far greater capital and operational
expense to operate and deploy its microfactories and manufacture EV
vehicles than it had disclosed; (iii) the Company would not
capitalize on or achieve profitability or provide meaningful
revenue in the time periods disclosed; (iv) the Company would not
achieve its disclosed production and sales volumes; (v) the Company
would not meet the disclosed production rollout deadlines; (vi)
accordingly, the Company materially overstated its financial and
operational position and/or prospects; and (vii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Investors learned the truth about the real status of Arrival's
financial and operational health through a series of disclosures
beginning on November 8, 2021. On November 8, 2021, Arrival
announced the Company's financial results for the third quarter of
2021, including a loss of EUR26 million (compared to a loss of
EUR22 million during the same quarter a year earlier), and adjusted
EBITDA loss for the quarter of EUR40 million (compared to a loss of
EUR18 million in the third quarter of 2020). The Company also
pulled its 2022 revenue goals and significantly scaled back its
long-term projections, pushing its production and sales timeline
into later time periods.
On this news, shares of Arrival plummeted $4.33, or 24%, to close
at $13.46 on November 10, 2021 on unusually high trading volume.
Only a week later, on November 17, 2021, Arrival announced a $200
million offering of green convertible senior notes due 2026,
intended to finance the development of EVs. On the same day,
November 17, 2021, Arrival announced the commencement of an
underwritten public offering of 25 million ordinary shares pursuant
to a registration statement on Form F-1 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in a bid to raise around $330
million in cash.
On this news, Arrival shares dropped $0.82, or approximately 8%, to
close at $9.91 on November 18, 2021 on unusually high trading
volume.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Dervitz FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Samantha Dervitz, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. ARS National Services, Inc., John Does 1 to
10, Case No. ESX-L-90-00021, was removed from the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Essex to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Jan. 13, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00179 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
ARS National Services Inc. -- https://www.arsnational.com/ -- is
one of the largest debt collection agencies in the US.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 471-6200
Fax: (212) 935-1166
Email: hbeh@hinshawlaw.com
AT&T INC: Argues Age Bias Class Action Barred by Job Pacts
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that AT&T Inc.
will tell the Third Circuit on Jan. 13 that a release of legal
claims signed by a former manager when she was laid off, as well as
her earlier promise to arbitrate, bar her age bias lawsuit against
the company and a subsidiary.
Patricia Kantz lost her job at age 57 when she was included in a
reduction in force conducted by AT&T and AT&T Services Inc.'s
technology and operations business unit.
She sued in January 2020, alleging the RIF targeted workers 40 and
older and that the general release she signed to receive a
severance package didn't include all the information federal law
requires for older workers to voluntarily waive age bias claims.
Kantz seeks to represent a class of all former employees of AT&T
and related affiliates who were similarly affected by the alleged
systemic bias.
But she's bound by an arbitration agreement that requires
individual arbitration and forbids her to raise employment-related
disputes in court, according to the companies. It remains binding
despite the separate general release, the companies said in their
pre-argument briefing.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
mistakenly found in a March 19 ruling that the general release
superseded the arbitration pact and that Kantz isn't required to
individually arbitrate her Age Discrimination in Employment Act
claims, AT&T said.
'Comfortably Co-Exist'
The arbitration agreement and general release had different aims
and can "comfortably co-exist," AT&T said.
The arbitration agreement sets the forum for resolving employment
disputes, and the release exchanges legal rights for money. Nothing
in the release mentions the arbitration agreement or arbitration
generally, so the release had no effect on Kantz's longstanding
consent to individual arbitration, it said.
It was up to Kantz to prove the later-signed release was intended
to eclipse the earlier arbitration pact, and she failed to do so,
according to AT&T.
Courts across the country have consistently rejected efforts to
evade valid arbitration agreements and class action waivers, the
companies said.
Characterizations Faulty
AT&T mischaracterizes the nature of the two agreements, Kantz said
in her briefing filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.
The pacts share the same central subject -- the resolution of
disputes arising out of or related to her employment or
termination, Kantz said.
That the two agreements serve different purposes doesn't mean they
address different subjects, she said.
Like arbitration, the claims foreclosure that was the aim of the
release is a method of dispute resolution, Kantz said.
And both agreements contain terms beyond those highlighted by AT&T,
she said. The release even includes language stating that it set
forth the entire agreement between her and the companies regarding
her termination, Kantz said.
Console Mattiacci Law represents Kantz and the proposed class. Paul
Hastings LLP represents AT&T.
The case is Kantz v. AT&T Inc., 3d Cir., No. 21-01620, oral
argument 1/13/22. [GN]
ATLANTA, GA: Denial of Ansley Walk's Bid for Class Cert. Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANSLEY WALK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
et al. v. THE ATLANTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY d/b/a INVEST ATLANTA,
et al., Case No. A21A1623 (Ga. App.), the Court of Appeals of
Georgia, Third Division, affirms the trial court's denial of class
certification.
Plaintiffs Ansley Walk Condominium Association, Inc., Wayne A.
Christian, Robert R. Smith, and Foah Properties, LLC, filed a
putative class action for inverse condemnation and trespass against
The Atlanta Development Authority d/b/a Invest Atlanta ("ADA"),
Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. ("ABI"), and the City of Atlanta
(collectively "the City"), alleging that the City has failed to
compensate property owners for the unauthorized use and taking of
their property to develop a portion of the Atlanta BeltLine.
The record shows that the 3.46-mile stretch of property at issue
("the Property") originally was a railroad corridor. The former
railroad purpose easements on the Property originally were
established in the 19th century by the Georgia Airline Railway
Company, the Atlanta and Richmond Air Line Railway Company, The
Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway Company, and Southern
Railway Company through a combination of deeds and agreements with
landowners at the time. Norfolk Southern Railroad eventually became
the owner of the railroad easements as successor to these
companies.
In 2004, Norfolk transferred its interest in the Property to
entities unrelated to this matter, but reserved to itself an
easement for railroad purposes. In 2008, The Atlanta Development
Authority acquired the Property in order to develop the Atlanta
BeltLine, a transportation and economic development initiative
involving, among other things, multi-use trails for
pedestrian/bicycle traffic and fixed rail routes and modern
streetcars within the City of Atlanta. Atlanta BeltLine, Inc.
("ABI") is the implementation agent for the BeltLine.
Following acquisition of the property by ADA and in connection with
developing and operating the BeltLine, ADA and ABI entered into at
least 60 different agreements with adjacent property owners to
resolve any potential issues relating to property rights. The
agreements include boundary line agreements, license agreements,
access agreements, limited warranty deeds, and a variety of
easement agreements, including easements granted by certain of the
putative class members to ADA and ABI and vice versa. Putative
class members, who did not enter into property-rights agreements
with the City Defendants were notified by letter and/or e-mail of
ABI and/or ADA's planned use of the Property beginning in 2008.
The Property includes part of the BeltLine's Eastside Trail and
part of the Beltline's Northeast Trail. Construction on the
2.25-mile section of the Eastside Trail began in 2010 and was
opened to the public in October 2012. As of 2020, the Northeast
Trail was partially open to the public with limited points of
access, but lacked lighting and pavement. ABI considers the
Northeast Trail an "Interim Trail" with plans for additional
construction over the next few years. On March 7, 2017, Norfolk
terminated its railroad purpose easement over the Property.
The Class Action
In 2017, Ansley Walk Condominium Association, Inc. filed the
underlying class action complaint for inverse condemnation,
trespass, and attorney fees, costs, and expenses. According to the
complaint, putative class members are "landowners who own fee title
in land adjoining and within [the Property]," and are the
successors in interest through the landowners who granted the
original railroad easements.
Ansley filed an unopposed motion to add Jodaco, Inc., Wayne A.
Christian, and Robert R. Smith as parties to the lawsuit, alleging
that they are members of the putative class of landowners. The
trial court granted the motion. Ansley subsequently filed a motion
to add Foah Properties, LLC, as a party along with a motion to drop
Jodaco, Inc. The trial court granted both motions.
According to the complaint, when Norfolk "abandoned" its railroad
purpose easement in 2017, the Property became unburdened by all
railroad easements, and the Plaintiffs were entitled to reclaim
their 'reversionary' right to use, possess, and control their land
that they owned in fee simple to the centerline of the Property.
However, these rights were "blocked" by the City's development of
the Property into the BeltLine, constituting a trespass and
effecting a taking of their property, entitling them to just
compensation. The Plaintiffs proposed that the prospective class
members be identified by a search of the records of the Fulton
County Tax Assessor and Recorder of Deeds.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 3,
2020, defining the proposed class as follows:
The people and entities who, on March 7, 2017, owned
interests in lands constituting part of the railroad
corridor or right-of-way on which a rail line formerly was
operated by Norfolk from milepost 633.10 to milepost
636.56 in Fulton County, Georgia, and who seek to recover
just and adequate compensation for a taking by Defendants of
their interests and rights to use, possess, control, and
enjoy the railroad corridor lands having been abandoned by
Norfolk on March 7, 2017, and who contend that Defendants
are liable for the taking of and trespass upon their lands
and interests.
After a hearing, the trial court denied class certification,
concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy any of the class
certification requirements under Section 9-11-23(a) and (b) of the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated or OCGA. This appeal followed.
Discussion
The Appellate Court's inquiry begins with the elements of the
underlying causes of action: inverse condemnation and trespass. The
Plaintiffs assert that several legal issues common to the proposed
class dominate this litigation: (1) the nature of the interests
conveyed to the original five railroads; (2) the effect of the
Termination of Railroad Easement signed by Norfolk in March 2017;
(3) the application of Georgia's center-line presumption to
establish abutting landowners' title to the corridor property; (4)
the effect of the City's continued use of the abutting landowners'
property for the BeltLine; and (5) the legally correct date of
taking.
Conversely, the City asserts that determining whether most of these
elements are met requires a property-specific inquiry and that
issues of individual ownership, as well as defenses and damages,
overshadow any common issues. The Appellate Court agrees with the
City.
Judge E. Trenton Brown, III, writing for the Panel, finds that each
of the Plaintiffs' claims requires a determination that the
putative class members own the property adjoining the railroad
corridor and that their rights extend to the center-line of the
corridor. And here, each class member's ownership is an individual
issue that is not susceptible to class-wide proof because it
requires an analysis of each property deed.
In addition, as the trial court correctly pointed out, there are
approximately 60 property-rights agreements between the putative
class members and the City that must be individually reviewed to
determine their impact on the putative class members' claims and
ownership, as well as possible defenses, Judge Brown holds. For
example, some putative class members signed boundary-line
agreements that may have conveyed any interest the member may have
held in the Property to ADA. The Plaintiffs argue that the
center-line presumption permits class treatment of ownership, but
whether the presumption applies is deed-specific, Judge Brown
points out.
Additionally, to establish their takings claim, the Plaintiffs will
be required to prove that the original grantors intended to convey
a railroad-purpose easement to the railroad as opposed to fee
simple.
Judge Brown holds that in the instant case, the trial court
correctly considered the individualized nature of damages after
concluding that the Defendants' liability for inverse condemnation
and trespass cannot be established without engaging in multiple
individualized, case-by-case determinations. Further, given that
the properties at issue include both single-family and multi-family
residential, as well as a wide variety of commercial properties,
the Appellate Court agrees with the trial court's conclusion that
the issue of damages would be highly individualized in this case.
A real estate appraiser retained by the City to assess residential
properties along the corridor deposed that a "mass valuation
method" would not be appropriate for "valuing the properties or any
potential damages to the properties" at issue, and that each
property would need to be individually appraised, Judge Brown
notes. A second appraiser retained by the City to assess commercial
properties deposed that this is "a complicated stretch of property.
It's urban it's very densely developed, and so it does appear to be
a complicated analysis." In his opinion, each property at issue
would need to be analyzed and appraised individually.
In light of this, Judge Brown concludes that the individualized
nature of damages further shows that individual issues predominate
over common ones, citing Atkins v. United States, No. 4:15CV933CDP,
2016 WL 3878466, at *4-5 (E.D. Mo. July 18, 2016).
Because the Plaintiffs have failed to show that questions common to
the class predominate over questions affecting individual members,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class
certification, Judge Brown concludes.
Judgment affirmed. Doyle, P. J., and Reese, J., concur.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 30, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s8fyw5r from Leagle.com.
BEBE STORES: Hicks Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Hicks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BEBE STORES, INC., Case No. CACE-22-000192 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 1, 2022), is brought under
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant engages in telephonic sales
calls to consumers without having secured prior express written
consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic sales
calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including
violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, am1oyance,
nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. Through this action, the
Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of
himself and the Class members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the
Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.
The Defendant is a foreign corporation and a "telephone solicitor,"
maintaining its primary place of business and headquarters in San
Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301, Suite 1400
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Davis, writing for SC Media, reports that BioPlus Specialty
Pharmacy Services is facing a class-action data breach lawsuit,
following its recent disclosure of a weeks-long IT network hack
that resulted in the unauthorized access of former and current
patient-related information. The lawsuit claims the incident was
caused by the vendor's inadequate security measures, while raising
further questions into the breach itself.
The breach notice describes the incident as unauthorized access of
patient information, while the lawsuit alleges the data was
exfiltrated from the network. Further, victims have been given "no
assurance . . . from BioPlus that all personal data or copies of
data have been recovered or destroyed."
What's interesting is that the public notice does not include the
data theft language, but the lawsuit states that the patient
"received a notification letter from BioPlus stating that her
sensitive PII was taken."
The hack was discovered by BioPlus on Nov. 11, but the systems'
intrusion began nearly a month earlier on Oct. 25. The
investigation that followed confirmed the threat actor accessed a
range of information belonging to 350,000 former and current
patients.
The exposed data could include dates of birth, health plan member
ID numbers, claims data, medical record numbers, diagnoses, and or
prescription details. The actors also accessed the Social Security
numbers of a smaller subset of patients.
The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 5 in the U.S. Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, alleges that the data exposed during the
hack was leaked on the dark web by the attackers. To make matters
worse, a patient named Patricia White claims that BioPlus shouldn't
have had her data in the first place.
White claims her information was entered into the BioPlus system in
2015 due to a "clerical error," which resulted in her prescription
information being sent from her provider to BioPlus instead of her
in-network pharmacy. The patient informed the parties of the
mistake and canceled the BioPlus service.
However, "her information remained in [BioPlus]'s systems,
vulnerable to misuse, until the data breach occurred in November of
2021."
In addition, one month after the initial hack, White received a
notice from her credit monitoring services vendor that her
information appeared on the dark web and was shared on a forum for
trading sensitive patient information used in health insurance and
other banking scams.
The lawsuit asserts the data theft was caused by BioPlus, for its
"failure to exercise reasonable care" in securing sensitive
protected health information and personally identifiable
information. The alleged failures "enabled the hackers to steal the
private Information". . . and put patients' "information at a
serious, immediate, and ongoing risk."
As a result of the theft, patients are now burdened with the costs
of recovery and "loss of productivity from taking time to address
and attempt to ameliorate the release of personal data, as well as
emotional grief associated with constant monitoring of personal
banking and credit accounts."
The language surrounding the claims of harm mirror recent
breach-related lawsuits, centering around constant monitoring of
accounts, ongoing efforts to prevent fraud attempts, and "the
imposition of withdrawal and purchase limits on compromised
accounts."
BioPlus did offer a year of free credit monitoring services to all
breach victims, the lawsuit takes issue with the lack of assurances
about the security of patient information. It further claims that
to receive the provided services, the data of individuals would "be
shared with third parties and could not guarantee complete privacy
of her sensitive PII."
As a result, the victims who filed the lawsuit chose not to give
the vendor any more data to receive those services.
Just one of the two victims who filed the lawsuit provided evidence
of data misuse. The breach victims are seeking declaratory relief
for claims of negligence, as well as breach of contract, implied
contract, and fiduciary duty.
Lastly, the lawsuit also takes issue with the three month delay in
notification. However, the disclosure was well-within the 60-day
timeline from discovery to notification, outlined in The Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Breach lawsuits have become increasingly common in the healthcare
sector in light of the steady stream of security incidents. At
least three other suits were filed in the last month and include
Planned Parenthood LA, QRS, and Bansley and Kiener. [GN]
BOB BAFFERT: Responds to Bettors' Racketeering Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
T. D. Thornton, writing for Thoroughbred Daily News, reports that
trainer Bob Baffert told a federal judge on Jan. 12 that a group of
bettors who are suing him in a class-action lawsuit alleging a
years-long pattern of racketeering based on his purported "doping"
of Thoroughbreds have twisted their case so far from reality that
their alleged misstatements amount to libel.
In a Jan. 12 filing in United States District Court (District of
New Jersey), Baffert stated that the plaintiffs' recent attempt to
portray him as the "Lance Armstrong of the horse racing world" is a
"desperate conglomeration of highly inflammatory statements . . .
designed to create a smokescreen in an effort to get the Court to
take its eye off the ball. This Court should not be distracted."
Baffert continued: "No matter how much outrageousness Plaintiffs
throw on the wall in the hopes that something will stick, they
cannot avoid three fundamental black letter law principles that
mandate dismissal of their Amended Complaint.
"First, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
Second, as disgruntled gamblers, Plaintiffs' have no standing and
fail to present a justiciable claim. Finally, each and every court
that has considered Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) claims in the context of gambling losses
has rejected those claims as a matter of law. . .
"Plaintiffs purposefully misrepresent Baffert's Hall of Fame record
and make numerous libelous Statements," the Jan. 12 filing
alleged.
The original version of the suit, led by Michael Beychok, the
winner of the 2012 National Horseplayers Championship, was filed
four days after Baffert's disclosure that now-deceased Medina
Spirit had tested positive for betamethasone after winning the May
1, 2021, Derby. Baffert, plus his incorporated racing stable, are
the defendants.
Split-sample testing at two different labs approved by the Kentucky
Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) has since confirmed the
betamethasone overage. But even after eight months, no KHRC ruling
has yet been issued over those findings. On Dec. 6, Medina Spirit
collapsed and died after a workout at Santa Anita Park, and his
sudden death is under investigation in that state.
The class members of the suit have alleged that they were "cheated
out of their property" because they placed wagers on other horses
and betting combinations that would have paid off had "the drugged
horse" not won the Derby.
The plaintiffs have chosen the RICO Act as a tool to try and
collect damages. In addition, they seek an order from the judge
stating that Baffert must divest himself from the sport.
RICO is a sweeping and powerful 1970 federal statute initially
designed to combat the Mafia. But in a legal sense, it has long
since lost its "organized crime" stigma. Despite the statute's
original intent, RICO today is only rarely used to go after
stereotypical "godfather" figures. Instead, RICO has evolved as a
key component in civil litigation, and is most often asserted by
purported victims of white-collar crimes, such as mail and wire
fraud.
The class-action complaint was subsequently amended and moved from
California to a New Jersey federal court. In previous court
documents, the plaintiffs explained that New Jersey should be the
proper venue. They cited a legal precedent that involved a case in
which the act of simulcasting a race into New Jersey from another
state "permits the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over
it." They also alleged that Baffert's purported fraud included his
occasional starts at Monmouth Park.
Back in September, when Baffert first moved for dismissal of the
suit, his court filing termed that switch from California to New
Jersey "blatant forum shopping" because the new venue has "no
meaningful connection to the allegations raised in their Complaint.
The Defendants are all domiciled in California and the events
detailed in the Complaint occurred entirely in either California or
Kentucky."
In the Jan. 12 filing, Baffert's legal team again asserted that the
plaintiffs are off base in attempting to litigate the matter in New
Jersey.
"The law is clear that there must be case-specific contacts with
the forum state," the filing stated. "That is not established by
Baffert's rare and irrelevant New Jersey racing activities. Even if
one were to accept Plaintiffs' tinfoil conspiratorial premise that
Baffert engaged in a nationwide racketeering scheme to defraud
individuals he never met, Plaintiffs would still have to establish
that at least some of the alleged illicit conduct actually occurred
in New Jersey. They have utterly failed to do so. This matter has
zero connection to New Jersey and it must be dismissed."
Baffert wants the suit thrown out "with prejudice," which would
mean that it can't be brought up again in another form or in a
different court.
"Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint should also be dismissed because
their claims are not justiciable," the Jan. 12 filing stated. "As
the Baffert Defendants have explained, there is no current case and
controversy because 1) the entirety of Plaintiffs' claims rest on a
speculative presupposition that Medina Spirit will be disqualified
at some future date potentially years from now; and 2) their exact
alleged injury is not recognized as a viable cause of action under
both statutory and common law.
"Plaintiffs' state-law claims are equally doomed," the filing
stated. "Plaintiffs' fraud claims are not pleaded with
particularity and they have not alleged, nor could they, that the
Baffert Defendants intended to defraud them as gamblers and induce
their reliance." [GN]
BRIGHT HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Jan. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Bright Health Group, Inc. ("Bright Health"
or the "Company") (NYSE: BHG) in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Bright Health
securities between June 24, 2021 and November 10, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"); or pursuant and/or traceable to the
June 24, 2021 IPO. Investors have until March 7, 2022 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
In June 2021, Bright Health completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling approximately 51 million shares of common stock
for $18.00 per share.
On November 11, 2021, Bright Health reported its third quarter
financial results, revealing earnings per share ("EPS") of -$0.48
as calculated under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
("GAAP"), missing consensus estimates by $0.31. The Company also
reported a sharp rise in the Company's medical cost ratio ("MCR"),
advising investors that its MCR "for the third quarter of 2021 was
103.0%, including a 540 basis point unfavorable impact from
COVID-19 related costs and a 900 basis point unfavorable impact
primarily from a cumulative reduction in premium revenue due to an
inability to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives."
On this news, Bright Health's stock fell $2.36, or 32%, to close at
$4.94 per share on November 11, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Bright Health shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone
at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
BRIGHT HEALTH: Kuznicki Law Reminds of March 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Bright Health Group, Inc. (NYSE: BHG), if
they purchased the Company's securities between June 24, 2021 and
November 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's shares pursuant to the
Company's June 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").
Shareholders have until March 7, 2022 to file lead plaintiff
applications in the securities class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-bhg/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/,
by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email
(dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
BROWARD HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over October 2021 Cyberattack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Adams, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Broward Health is facing a potential
class-action lawsuit after it notified about 1.35 million patients
that their protected health information was exposed during an
October 2021 cyberattack.
The lawsuit was filed Jan. 12 by Abigail Walecki, one of the
patients whose information was affected. In the complaint, she
alleged Broward failed to adequately protect patient data.
Personal information that may have been accessed during the
incident includes name, date of birth, address, phone number,
financial or bank account information, Social Security number,
driver's license number, email address, insurance information and
account number, and medical record number. The intruder also may
have accessed patients' medical information concerning history,
condition, treatment and diagnosis.
"Broward Health discovered the intrusion on Oct. 19 and promptly
contained the incident, notified the FBI and the Department of
Justice and engaged an independent cybersecurity firm to conduct an
investigation," a health system spokesperson told Becker's Jan. 13.
"Patient care was not disrupted or impacted at any time during or
following this incident."
The spokesperson also said Broward has implemented enhanced
security protocols to prevent future cyberthreats, including a
required password reset for all employees and multifactor
authentication for all users of its systems.
Note: This article was updated at 4:45 p.m. Central Standard Time
Jan. 13 to include Broward Health's comments. [GN]
BSW GENERAL: Singh Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gurdeep Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jasvir Singh Ghotra, Gian Singh
Maltani, Jadgwinder Singh, Avtar Singh, and Prithvipal Singh,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BSW
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., RAJINDER SINGH, ARSHJEET SINGH, and QBE
INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-00025-GRB-JMW (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 3, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay
owed to them pursuant to both the FLSA and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs also seek to recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily
overtime and supplemental benefits which they were entitled to
receive for work, including weekend work, they performed on the
Public Works Project
The Plaintiffs provided labor to BSW General Construction Corp. in
the performance of BSW's contract with the Sayville Union Free
School District ("SUFSD") Board of Education for the
publicly-financed masonry reconstruction project at Sayville High
School (Contract No.: 58-05-04-03-0-004-032) (the "Public Works
Project").
For their work, the Plaintiffs and the Opt-In the Plaintiffs were
paid per-shift rates that did not include the applicable prevailing
wages and supplemental benefits. For the vast majority of their
work on the Public Works Project, BSW failed to pay the Plaintiffs
any wages whatsoever for several weeks at a time, let alone the
prevailing wages and supplemental benefits that they were
contractually and statutorily entitled to receive for their work.
In addition, although the Plaintiffs were told they would be paid
on a weekly basis, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs with
back-dated checks at random times that did not contain any
information regarding the corresponding payroll periods, and which
frequently were returned by the bank for insufficient funds causing
the Plaintiffs to incur returned check bank fees, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are construction masons/bricklayers, laborers,
workmen and mechanics that provided labor to the Defendant.
BSW has performed general contracting services and specializes in
new construction building and alterations in both indoor and
outdoor structures, including roofing, masonry, waterproofing,
concrete and painting services, brick work, pointing work, window
lintels and caulking, and iron works.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 385-9700
Web: www.peltongraham.com
BTTR BEAUTY LLC: Denied Avilez Overtime Pay, Meal Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------
Anakarina Avilez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BTTR Beauty LLC and Tomy Rivero,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00097, (S.D. N.Y., January 5, 2022),
seeks to recover unpaid wages due to unpaid overtime and invalid
tip credits and spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New
York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate restaurants under the "Tomy Rivero Beauty Lab
Nail Salon," in New York where Avilez was hired to work as a
receptionist at their salon and spa located New York, NY until
approximately November 19, 2021. She claims to have worked over 40
hours per workweek without being paid overtime premiums for hours
over 40 per week, sometimes without meal breaks. She also claims to
be denied wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
CAL-MAINE FOOD: Second Amended Complaint Pending in W.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Food Products disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-K for the quarterly period ended November 27 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 28, 2021, that
case docketed Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-461 (W.D. Tex., April 30, 2020), said court has yet to rule
on the plaintiff's complaint after the company responded on
November 1, 2021. Said case asserts that defendants violated the
Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) by
allegedly demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during
the COVID-19 state of emergency. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the
Cal-Maine and other defendants from selling eggs at a price more
than 10% greater than the price of eggs prior to the declaration of
the state of emergency and filed for damages in the amount of
$10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each violation impacting
anyone over 65 years old.
In December 1, 2020, the company and certain other defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended class action complaint.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike, and the
motion to dismiss and related proceedings were referred to a United
States magistrate judge.
In July 14, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation to the court that the defendants’ motion to
dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 20, 2021, the
court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation in its
entirety and granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
first amended class action complaint and thereafter, the court
entered a final judgment in favor of the company and certain other
defendants dismissing the case without prejudice.
On October 18, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the final judgement and allow a filing of a second amended
complaint.
Cal-Maine Food Products is in to live-stock and animal specialties
based in Mississippi.
CANADA: Mounties Want Supreme Court to Reject RCMP Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Post reports that mounties waging a class action against
the RCMP over bullying and harassment are telling the Supreme Court
to reject a federal move to have the suit thrown out.
The lead plaintiffs, veteran RCMP members Geoffrey Greenwood and
Todd Gray, say they were among those subjected to a culture of
systemic bullying, intimidation and harassment that was fostered
and condoned by the RCMP leadership.
Last September the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a judge's order
certifying the action and defined the class as RCMP members and
reservists who served from Jan. 1, 1995, until the recent
unionization of affected members.
Two months later, government lawyers filed an application asking
the Supreme Court of Canada to review the case.
In a statement, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki said the government
is seeking clarity on whether the courts should certify a class
action relating to workplace disputes when there are already
administrative resolution processes in place.
Greenwood and Gray argue that before unionization of the force, the
only recourse was through members of the chain of command who were
either involved in such behaviour themselves or protected the
perpetrators.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 12,
2022. [GN]
CARMAX INC: Bendure Labor Suit Pending in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that a class action
asserting wage and hour claims with respect to non-exempt CarMax
employees in California is pending in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino.
On July 9, 2021, Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Bendure
lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code,
attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest,
injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special
damages.
The asserted claims include failure to provide meal periods and
rest breaks, pay statutory or contractual wages and reimbursement
for work-related expenses.
Carmax, Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia.
CARMAX INC: Miller Labor Suit Underway in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that a class action
asserting wage and hour claims with respect to non-exempt CarMax
employees in California has been pending in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside.
On August 12, 2021, Jordon Miller v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. The Miller
lawsuit also seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code,
attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest,
injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special
damages.
The asserted claims include failure to provide meal periods and
rest breaks, pay statutory or contractual wages and reimburse for
work-related expenses.
Carmax, Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia.
CARMAX INC: Sabanovich Labor Suit Pending in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that a putative class
action, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Stanislaus is still pending.
On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich asserted wage and hour
claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants in case docketed
Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC et al.
The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide
meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements and unfair competition.
The Sabanovich lawsuit also seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.
Carmax, Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia.
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Morales Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICMARIE MORALES and ROBERT POWELL and LARHONDA SMITH, Plaintiffs
v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00111-JPB
(N.D. Ga., January 11, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for unpaid overtime, illegal deductions and unpaid
minimum wages, and breach of contract.
The Plaintiffs have been employed by Defendant as security guards
at their location in Conley, Georgia.
Central Transport, LLC is a foreign corporation with a principal
place of business in Conley, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone/Facsimile: (877) 443-0999
E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com
CHEGG INC: Robbins LLP Reminds of February 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
class action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg, Inc.
(NYSE: CHGG) common stock between May 20, 2020 and November 1,
2021. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Chegg is a provider of online research tools, online
tutoring services, digital and physical textbook rentals, and other
educational resources.
If you suffered a loss due to Chegg, Inc.'s misconduct, click
here.
Chegg, Inc. (CHGG) Made Material Misstatements Regarding its
Business Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
falsely touted that the Company was "in a unique position to impact
the future of the higher education system" and that the primary
cause of the Company's success was "[o]ur strong brand and
momentum" which would supposedly allow Chegg "to continue to grow
and take advantage of the ever-expanding opportunities in the
learner economy." Based on these misstatements, the market price of
Chegg's common stock more than tripled during the class period,
reaching a high of more than $115 per share by February 16, 2021.
With the stock artificially inflated, several of Chegg's senior
officers and directors sold more than $90 million of their
personally held shares. The Company also took advantage of the
artificially inflated trading price by selling more than $1 billion
of common stock to investors in the February 18, 2021 secondary
offering at the artificially inflated price of $102 per share.
In reality, Chegg's growth had been a temporary effect of the
COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in remote education for the
majority of U.S. students, and once the pandemic-related
restrictions eased and students returned to campuses, Chegg's
growth trend would end. Further, Chegg's subscriber and revenue
growth were due to the facilitation of cheating - an unstable
business proposition - rather than the strength of its business
model or the acumen of its senior executives and directors.
On November 1, 2021, Chegg revealed its financial results for the
first quarter in which students returned to campus across the U.S.,
revealing fewer-than-expected enrollments while declining to
provide 2022 guidance. On this news, Chegg's stock plummeted nearly
50%, losing more than $4.3 billion in market capitalization.
If you purchased shares of Chegg, Inc. (CHGG) between May 20, 2020
and November 1, 2021, you have until February 21, 2022, to ask the
court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses. [GN]
CLARK'S LAWN CARE: Prosser Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orin Prosser, III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Clark's Lawn Care LLC, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00060, (N.D. Ohio, January 11, 2022), seeks all available
relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Prosser was employed by Clark's Lawn Care as a laborer engaged in
lawn care and snow removal services. He claims to regularly work in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek without any overtime wages. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
Email: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
COLONIAL FIRST: March 25 Mediation Deadline Set for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Nichols, writing for Independent Financial Adviser, reports
that a class action against CBA-owned investment manager and
superannuation business Colonial First State is on track to
commence from early April, with the presiding Federal Court Judge,
Bernard Murphy, setting a mediation date deadline between both
parties for 25 March.
A case management hearing is currently set for 17 February, with
the three-week hearing commencing from 4 April, should the
mediation fail to find a resolution.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the case to the Victorian Federal
Court on 17 October 2019.
It alleged that Colonial First State's slow implementation of the
MySuper reforms for members of its FirstChoice Employer Super,
required under the Stronger Super reforms, from 2013 to 2017
resulted in "substantial losses" to over 100,000 consumers.
According to the law firm, Colonial First State and its former
executive director Linda Elkins failed to "exercise the degree of
care, skill and diligence required of a prudent superannuation
trustee", while also failing to exercise its power in the best
interests of its members.
Speaking in 2019, Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Miranda Nagy
commented the case would centre on the investment manager's failure
to transition $3.2 billion of accrued funds to the MySuper product
in a timely manner.
"The contraventions at the heart of this case resulted in members
in FirstChoice Employer Super paying higher fees and receiving a
lower investment return for an extended period of time, when they
could have been in [Colonial First State's] cheaper,
better-performing MySuper product earlier," she said.
Responding to the claim in 2019, Colonial First State noted: "The
key allegation is that members should have been transferred to a
MySuper product earlier than they were."
The company made its statement on the same day that Slater and
Gordon revealed it had filed its second class action proceedings
against it, claiming that 500,000 members had been charged
excessive superannuation fees to fund commissions paid to financial
advisers.
In January 2020, Shine Lawyers also filed a class action against
Colonial First State alleging hundreds of thousands of its super
members had wrongfully paid higher premiums than necessary.
In October last year, the Federal Court of Australia ordered the
company to pay a penalty of $20 million for breaching the ASIC Act
and Corporations Act when communicating to its members on at least
12,978 occasions.
The misconduct included failure to tell members that if Colonial
First State did not receive an investment direction from the
member, it was required to transfer the member's superannuation
contributions into a MySuper product.
ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court said at the time: "The $20 million
penalty handed down to Colonial is a timely reminder to
superannuation trustees not to mislead members for their own
benefit.
"Trustees have an obligation to provide their members with balanced
and accurate information that enables them to make informed
decisions about their retirement savings.
"Superannuation represents the future financial security of all
Australians. We want to see funds operate in a way that is fair for
members and promotes confidence in superannuation."
In December, CBA confirmed that regulators had given the green
light for the sale of a 55 per cent stake in Colonial First State
to private equity firm KKR. [GN]
COMUNIBANC CORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Civista Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Comunibanc Corp. (CBCZ), relating to its proposed merger with
Civista Bancshares, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, CBCZ
shareholders will receive 1.1888 shares of Civista and $79.25 in
cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/comunibanc-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Apria, Inc. (APR), relating to its proposed acquisition by Owens &
Minor, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, APR shareholders will
receive $37.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/apria-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Zynga, Inc. (ZNGA), relating to its proposed acquisition by
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, ZNGA Shareholders will receive $6.36 worth of Take-Two
shares and $3.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zynga-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
R1 RCM Inc. (RCM), relating to its merger with Cloudmed. Under the
terms of the agreement, RCM shareholders will own approximately 70%
of the combined company. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/r1-rcm-inc. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.
Redfin Corp. (RDFN), relating to its merger with Bay Equity LLC.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/redfin-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Falcon Minerals Corp. (FLMN), relating to its merger with Desert
Peak Minerals. FLMN shareholders are expected to own approximately
27% of the combined company. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/falcon-minerals-corp. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
CONCENTRA INC: Pascal Appeals Dismissal in TCPA Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lawrence Pascal filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled LAWRENCE PASCAL v. CONCENTRA, INC.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02559-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for Northern
California, San Francisco.
Plaintiff Lawrence Pascal commenced the class action against
Defendant Concentra, Inc. under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), asserting that Concentra has violated the TCPA by
sending text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) without the consent of recipients.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 29, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant's summary judgment motion;
2. denying the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion; and
3. dismissing case with prejudice.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Lawrence Pascal v. Concentra,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-15033, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 7, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Lawrence Pascal Mediation Questionnaire was due on
January 14, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by February 7, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on March 7, 2022;
-- Appellant Lawrence Pascal opening brief is due on April 18,
2022;
-- Appellee Concentra, Inc. answering brief is due on May 18,
2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LAWRENCE PASCAL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Mark Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
480 S Ellsworth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Telephone: (650) 781-8000
E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
Defendant-Appellee CONCENTRA, INC., a Delaware corporation is
represented by:
Pamela Madeliene Ferguson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 362-2580
- and -
Amy L. Pierce, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
Telephone: (916) 646-8210
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Deutsch Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Service
Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hershy Deutsch,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Continental Service Group, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:22-cv-00312 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Continental Service Group, Inc. doing business as ConServe --
https://www.conserve-arm.com/ -- provides debt collection
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
CONVERSE INC: Faces Class Action Over Meal Breaks, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a Converse
Inc. equipment operator failed to present sufficient evidence that
the sneaker manufacturer violated California breaks rules and
miscalculated overtime pay, a federal judge ruled.
There's no evidence that Converse prevented Bryan Madeira from
taking a second meal period and a third break when he worked
10-hour shifts, Judge Cormac J. Carney said on Jan. 11 in granting
the company's motion for summary judgment.
Converse previously convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit to remove the case back to the Central District of
California, after it had been remanded to state court. [GN]
DALLY GOODS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dally Goods LLC. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Dally
Goods LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00225 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dally Goods -- https://dallygoods.com/ -- offers small batch
all-natural botanical hand wash is scented with essential
oils.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DANIEL MARKUS: Lustig Sues Over Retaliation and Public Defamation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN LUSTIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DANIEL RISIS, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00161 (D.N.J., January 12, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and injunctive relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant retaliated against the
Plaintiff for filing a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to properly pay minimum wages and overtime pay. The
Defendant posted numerous YouTube videos accusing the Plaintiff of
money laundering and fraud and also accusing his wife of engaging
in some undefined and allegedly improper relationship with a local
township. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly threatened the class
members in the class suit to drop their participation in the case.
Mr. Risis is sued individually in his capacity as owner, officer,
and/or agent of Daniel Markus, Inc., where Plaintiff was employed
from in or around August 2016 until in or around May 2019. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chester R. Ostrowski, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
100 Walnut Avenue, Suite 210
Clark, NJ 07066
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
E-mail: costrowski@mclaughlinstern.com
- and –
Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
E-mail: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Among Defendants in Price-Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Pierce, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that
Dartmouth College, along with 15 other colleges and universities,
has been accused in a class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 9 of
creating a "price-fixing cartel" that has been "artificially
inflating" the price of attendance for decades.
"We have conducted a multi-year investigation of these practices,
which we allege are unlawful, and we plan to vindicate the rights
of more than 170,000 financial aid students and their families whom
we believe have been overcharged by these elite universities," an
attorney in the case, Robert D. Gilbert, said in a press release
regarding the lawsuit on Jan. 10.
The complaint was filed in the United States District Court of
Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, in Chicago, by a
group of national law firms -- Roche Freedman, Gilbert Litigators &
Counselors, Berger Montague and FeganScott.
The 16 defendants named in the complaint are Brown University,
California Institute of Technology, University of Chicago, Columbia
University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Duke University,
Emory University, Georgetown University, Massachusetts Institute Of
Technology, Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame,
University Of Pennsylvania, Rice University, Vanderbilt University
and Yale University.
The lawsuit alleges these institutions are "the country's most
elite, private universities" and have "unlawfully conspired to
reduce the amount of financial aid they provide to admitted
students, effectively fixing the net price of attendance," the
press release said.
The lawsuit goes on to say that the defendants participate in the
cartel claiming the protection of Section 568 of the Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994, the "568 Exemption."
"This exemption from the antitrust laws, which otherwise prohibit
conspiracies among competitors, applies to two or more institutions
of higher education at which "all students admitted are admitted on
a need-blind basis." Section 568 defines "on a need-blind basis" to
mean "without regard to the financial circumstances of the student
involved or the student's family," the lawsuit says.
"Under a true need-blind admissions system, all students would be
admitted without regard to the financial circumstances of the
student or student's family. Far from following this practice, at
least nine Defendants for many years have favored wealthy
applicants in the admissions process. These nine Defendants have
thus made admissions decisions with regard to the financial
circumstances of students and their families, thereby disfavoring
students who need financial aid. All Defendants, in turn, have
conspired to reduce the amount of financial aid they provide to
admitted students. This conspiracy, which has existed (with
slightly varying membership) for many years, thus falls outside the
exemption from the antitrust laws."
In the press release on Jan. 10, the group of attorneys said, "the
lawsuit seeks to put a halt to these allegedly unlawful activities
and to recover damages to make the class members whole.
"Varsity Blues took on the side door of admissions. This case takes
on the back door—alleging that, while conspiring together on a
method for awarding financial aid, which raises net tuition prices,
defendants also favor wealthy applicants in making admissions
decisions. The law does not allow them to do both," said one of the
attorneys Eric Rosen, the former federal and state prosecutor who
led the Varsity Blues prosecution team and is a current Roche
Freedman partner.
Citing the lawsuit as an "ongoing" legal matter, Dartmouth College
spokesperson Diana Lawrence declined to comment on Jan. 12.
Brazer Communications, a marketing firm representing the
plaintiffs' law firms, also declined to comment. [GN]
DB MARKETING: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DB Marketing with
Ingenuity, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
DB Marketing with Ingenuity, Inc. doing business as: Doll 10, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00358 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DB Marketing with Ingenuity, Inc. doing business as Doll 10 --
https://www.doll10.com/ -- offers clinically proven, cruelty-free
beauty solutions that are as effective as they are easy to
use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DEERE & CO: Faces Forest River Farms Antitrust Suit in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
FOREST RIVER FARMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN DEERE),
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00188 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act, promissory estoppel, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopolization of the
repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment
with onboard central computers known as engine control units
(ECUs). John Deere has deliberately monopolized the market for
repair and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment with
ECUs by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible to
farmers and independent repair shops. Furthermore, John Deere's
network of highly-consolidated independent dealerships is not
permitted through their agreements with John Deere to provide
farmers or repair shops with access to the same software and repair
tools the dealerships have. As a result of the Defendant's
monopolization, John Deere and its dealerships have derived
supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and maintenance
services, the suit added.
Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural
equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Tyler J. Story, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
jnb@wbe-llp.com
tjs@wbe-llp.com
- and –
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street #2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
kdennis@gustafsongluek.com
- and –
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
James G. Dallal, Esq.
Reid W. Gaa, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
jdallal@cpmlegal.com
rgaa@cpmlegal.com
DESIGN TOSCANO: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Design Toscano, Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Design Toscano, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00060-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Design Toscano, Inc. -- https://www.designtoscano.com/ -- is a
US-based multinational mail order catalog and electronic commerce
company founded by Michael Stopka in 1989.[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
DING DOCTOR: Chou Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ding Doctor, Inc.
The case is styled as Jackson Chou, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of himself, the
labor workforce development agency, and similarly situated
aggrieved current and former employees v. The Ding Doctor, Inc.,
doing business as Dannyu0092S Dealer, DANIEL MICHAEL CHAVES, GARY
MICHAEL CHAVES, DOES 1 THROUGH 20 INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC22597414
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco, Cty., Jan. 3, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Ding Doctor, Inc. -- http://www.dingdoctor.net/-- is an auto dent
removal service in San Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CO, PATRICK RVELEZ, GEORGE M.
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Valles Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Adjustment Service, Inc. The case is styled as Elaine Valles,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00026 (M.D.
Fla., Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Diversified Adjustment Service --
https://diversifiedadjustment.com/ -- provides debt collection
services to companies for their consumers using our helping hand
methods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
DOORDASH INC: Schwartz Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rebecca Schwartz, Zachary Chin, Joseph Flinders,
Daniel Chou, Quiana Pleasant, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Doordash, Inc., DOES 1-50, Case No.
CGC-21-589694, was removed from the California Superior Court, San
Francisco County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Jan. 13, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00250 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Dispute.
DoorDash, Inc. -- https://www.doordash.com/ -- is an American
company that operates an online food ordering and food delivery
platform.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Ilissa S. Samplin, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: (213) 229-7354
Fax: (213) 229-6354
Email: isamplin@gibsondunn.com
DRUMMAC INC: Gorman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drummac, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Aaron Gorman, on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Drummac, Inc., a Florida corporation; Moran
Environmental Recovery, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
Moran Towing Corporation, a New York corporation; Does 1-50; Case
No. 34-2022-00313456-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 4, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Drummac, Inc. -- https://www.drummac.com/ -- operates as railroad
repair and maintenance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
3990 Old Town Ave., Ste. C204
San Diego, CA 92110-2933
Phone: 619-599-8292
Fax: 619-599-8291
Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
DYLA LLC: Williamson Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dyla LLC. The case is
styled as Kelly Williamson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dyla LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00402
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Dyla LLC -- https://www.dylabrands.com/ -- is the company that
markets Stur Water and Forto ready-to-drink coffee shots.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 260-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
ELEMENT APOTHEC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Element Apothec, Inc.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Element
Apothec, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00236-DG-RML (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Element Apothec -- https://elementapothec.com/ -- was established
with one goal in mind: to create a line of natural and organic,
CBD-infused skincare and wellness products which combine the
healing powers of nature with the ingenuity of innovation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
EVIDENT ID: Smith Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
Autumn Smith, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. EVIDENT ID, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2021-CH-02990 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on Dec. 29, 2021,
and assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-06911.
The Plaintiff brings this action for "statutory damages" and other
relief as a result of Evident's alleged "violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)." The Plaintiff alleges
Evident violated the BIPA by: collecting Plaintiff's biometric
information and biometric identifiers without providing the
requisite notice and obtaining Plaintiff's written release, in
alleged violation of BIPA; "profiting from Plaintiff's biometrics"
by "providing customers paid access to Evident's software which
uses facial geometry and biometrics to verify users' identities,"
in alleged violation of BIPA; and "failing to obtain informed
consent to disclose or disseminate the Class' biometrics," in
alleged violation of BIPA.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 460-5000
Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Grabner Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chaning Grabner, Debra Grabner, individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 30-02021-01233648-CU, was removed from
the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Jan. 14, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00078 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company. The Company offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Vogt, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612-4408
Phone: (949) 851-3939
Fax: (949) 553-7539
Email: javogt@jonesday.com
EYE NEEDS INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eye Needs Inc. The
case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Eye Needs Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00228
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Eye Needs -- https://www.eyeneeds2020.com/ -- offer family eye care
including comprehensive eye exams for eyeglasses and contacts as
well as complete health assessments and glaucoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
FERRARI NORTH AMERICA: Rose Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ferrari North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Rose, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ferrari North
America, Inc., Ferrari, N.V., Ferrari S.P.A., Robert Bosch, LLC,
Robert Bosch GMBH, Case No. 2:21-cv-20772-JMV-CLW (D.N.J., Dec. 30,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability.
Ferrari North America, Inc. -- https://www.ferrari.com/ -- imports
and retails automobiles. The Company offers cars, sports vehicles,
and auto parts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Email: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
FILS UNIQUE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fils Unique Corp. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Fils
Unique Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-00231 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fils Unique -- https://www.filsunique.com/ -- handcrafts cufflinks
in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
FIRST SOLAR: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until March 8, 2022 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against First
Solar, Inc. (NasdaqGS: FSLR), if they purchased the Company's
shares between February 22, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona.
Get Help
First Solar investors should visit us at
https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-fslr-1/ or call toll-free
(844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.
About the Lawsuit
First Solar and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On February 20, 2020, the Company disclosed that it was exploring
the sale of its Project Development business, that it was
experiencing "challenges with regard to certain aspects of the
overall cost per watt," and that it would no longer be disclosing a
discrete cost per watt for its Series 6 units.
On this news, shares of First Solar declined, damaging
shareholders.
The case is City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v.
First Solar, Inc., No. 22-cv-00036.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Counsel Awarded $3.5MM in Fees & Costs in Persad Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SURESH PERSAD, DANIEL G. WRIGHT, AND ROBERT
S. DRUMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-12599-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Fee Motion and awards the Class Counsel
attorneys' fees for $3 million and $500,000 in costs.
The matter is before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards to Plaintiffs.
Defendant Ford and Plaintiffs Suresh Persad, Daniel G. Wright, and
Robert S. Drummond reached a Class settlement The Court gave its
preliminary approval of the Settlement on April 30, 2021 and
directed the Parties to provide notice to the Class of the proposed
Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing by regular mail and via
the internet.
The Court-appointed Settlement Claims Administrator, KCC Class
Action Services, effectuated notice to the Settlement Class in
accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order and also pursuant to
the notice requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1715.
The Plaintiffs submitted their Unopposed Fee Motion on Nov. 1,
2021. On Dec. 3, 2021, the Court conducted the Final Approval
Hearing.
After reviewing the pleadings and evidence filed in support of the
Plaintiffs' unopposed Fee Motion and hearing from the attorneys for
the Parties, the Court finds and orders that all terms in this
Order will have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $3
million and reimbursement of Class Counsel's Litigation Expenses in
the amount of $500,000, which sums the Court finds to be fair and
reasonable. The attorneys' fees and expenses awarded will be paid
to Class Counsel by Ford in accordance with the terms in the
Settlement.
Plaintiffs Suresh Persad, Daniel G. Wright, and Robert S. Drummond
are awarded an aggregate of $30,000 for their representation of the
Settlement Class.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding any attorneys' fees and expense application will in no
way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 30, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mtkdbk5c from Leagle.com.
FORD MOTOR: Court Enters Final Approval & Judgment in Persad Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment in
the lawsuit styled SURESH PERSAD, DANIEL G. WRIGHT, AND ROBERT S.
DRUMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-12599-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich.).
The matter comes before the Court for consideration of the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, in accordance with the Parties' Settlement Agreement.
In accordance with the approval of this motion, the Court issued
the Judgment and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice
and without costs.
Defendant Ford and Plaintiffs Suresh Persad, Daniel G. Wright, and
Robert S. Drummond reached a Class settlement. The Court
provisionally certified a Settlement Class and gave its preliminary
approval of the Settlement on April 30, 2021 and directed the
Parties to provide notice to the Class of the proposed Settlement
and the Final Approval Hearing by regular mail and via the
internet.
The Court-appointed Settlement Claims Administrator KCC Class
Action Services effectuated notice to the Settlement Class in
accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order and also pursuant to
the notice requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1715.
The Plaintiffs submitted their Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of Class Settlement on Nov. 1, 2021. On Dec. 3, 2021, the Court
conducted the Final Approval Hearing.
After reviewing the pleadings and evidence filed in support of
final approval of the Settlement and hearing from the attorneys for
the Parties, the Court finds and orders that all terms here will
have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement, and
that this Order incorporates and makes part hereof the Settlement
Agreement.
District Judge Terrence G. Berg notes that the Court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over the
Parties to this Litigation, including all Settlement Class Members.
The Court confirms its previous preliminary findings in the
Preliminary Approval Order.
For purposes of Settlement, the Litigation satisfies the
prerequisites for class action treatment under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Notice to the Settlement Class
required by Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has
been provided in accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval
Order.
The Settlement was the result of arm's-length negotiation involving
a mediator. The Parties and Settlement Class Members have submitted
to the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court for any suit, action,
proceeding, or dispute arising out of the Settlement.
The Court certifies the Settlement Class for purposes of Settlement
only:
All entities and natural persons in the United States
(including its Territories and the District of Columbia) who
currently own or lease (or who in the past owned or leased)
a model year 2016 and 2017 Ford Explorer sold or leased in
the United States, excluding 2016 and 2017 Police
Interceptor Utility Ford Explorers (the Settlement Class).
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all federal court judges
who have presided over this case and any members of their immediate
families; (2) all entities and natural persons who elect to exclude
themselves from the Settlement Class; (3) all entities and natural
persons who delivered to Ford releases of all their claims; and (4)
Ford's employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives,
and their family members.
The Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties is finally
approved pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the Settlement Class. The Parties are directed to perform all
obligations under the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its
terms.
The Court appoints these persons as Settlement Class
Representatives: Suresh Persad, Daniel G. Wright, and Robert S.
Drummond. The Court appoints Joseph H. Meltzer, E. Powell Miller,
and the law firms Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, and The
Miller Law Firm, P.C., as Class Counsel.
The Litigation is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
Judgment in the case has been entered without any admission by any
Party as to the merits of any allegation in the Litigation and
shall not constitute a finding of either fact or law as to the
merits of any claim or defense asserted in the Litigation.
The Released Claims of all Settlement Class Members are fully,
finally, and forever released, discharged, compromised, settled,
relinquished, and dismissed with prejudice against all of the
Released Parties. Members of the Settlement Class and their
successors and assigns are permanently barred and enjoined from
asserting, commencing, prosecuting, or continuing to prosecute,
either directly or indirectly, in any manner, any Released Claim
against any one of the Released Parties in any forum, with the
exception of any Settlement Class Members who have duly and timely
excluded themselves.
Without affecting the finality of this judgment, the Court's
retained jurisdiction of this Settlement also includes the
administration and consummation of the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order dated Dec. 30,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9xh9w4 from
Leagle.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Dec. 30, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8wwzch from Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Carmax Recoups $22.6M in Ignition Switch Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that the company is a
class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit
docketed "In re: General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation," in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
General Motors related to the economic loss associated with certain
model vehicles previously subject to recall for ignition switches,
electronic power steering, and side impact airbags, for model years
1997-2014.
On November 30, 2021, CarMax received $22.6 million in net
recoveries from the GM settlement fund.
Carmax, Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Lee Sues Over Unlawful Use of Non-Public Info
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC. and MORGAN STANLEY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00169 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2022) is a
class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all those
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Discovery Series A or
Discovery Series C common stock contemporaneously with Defendants'
unlawful trades from March 22, 2021 through and including March 29,
2021, inclusive, pursuant to Sections 20A, 10(b), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
This securities class action arises from the alleged unlawful use
of material non-public information by Defendants Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley, who collectively avoided billions in losses by
selling shares of Discovery Inc. securities, a mass media factual
television conglomerate based in New York City, to Plaintiff and
other unsuspecting and unwitting public shareholders, after
confidentiality learning that Archegos Capital Management, a family
office with $10 billion under management, failed (or was likely to
fail) to meet a margin call, requiring it to fully liquidate its
position in the Company.
The suit asserts that the Defendants sold a large amount of
Discovery shares during the week of March 22, 2021 while in
possession of material, non-public information. According to
subsequent media reports, Defendants unloaded large block trades
consisting of shares of Archegos' doomed bets, including billions
worth of Discovery securities, late Thursday, March 25, 2021,
before the Archegos story reached the public, sending Discovery's
stock into a complete tailspin.
As a result of these sales, the Defendants avoided billions in
losses combined, and the Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged
from Defendants' violations of U.S. securities laws.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services company headquartered in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
rswartz@scott-scott.com
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
- and -
David W. Hall, Esq.
Armen Zohrabian, Esq.
Arun Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
azohrabian@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
- and -
Brian J. Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (213) 519-5876
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
GOOGLE LLC: Averts Class Action Over Click-Fraud Detection System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that in a victory for
Google, a judge denied class-action status to a pay-per-click
advertiser who claims the company misrepresented the effectiveness
of its click-fraud detection system.
The ruling allows business owner Gurminder Singh to continue
proceedings against Google as an individual, but doing so is often
prohibitively expensive. [GN]
GULFPORT ENERGY: Former Executives Avert Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Gulfport
Energy Corp. executives convinced a federal court in New York to
throw out a proposed class action brought on behalf of purchasers
of securities who alleged false and misleading statements in
connection with accounting for oil and gas properties.
Lead plaintiff Joseph A. Rotunno alleged Gulfport's former CEO
David M. Wood and two former CFOs -- Keri Crowell and Quentin R.
Hicks -- violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The lawsuit came after a February 2020 press release
restated financial results in the wake of an error related to the
amortization base used to account for properties. [GN]
HARTZ HOTEL: Faces Oneal Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE ONEAL, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. HARTZ HOTEL SERVICES, INC., TRIBECA
GRAND HOTEL, INC. d/b/a THE ROXY HOTEL, SOHO GRAND HOTEL, INC.
d/b/a SOHO GRAND HOTEL, and CONSTANTINO MILANO, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00159 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2022) is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to
recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid meal credit deductions, unpaid spread of hours premium,
unpaid split shift pay premium, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked as a sous chef for the Defendants' "Roxy
Hotel" in New York from June 2018 to March 2019.
The Defendants operate two hotels in New York City under the trade
names "The Roxy Hotel" and "Soho Grand Hotel."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Advertising-- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Instadose Pharma Corp. f/k/a Mikrocoze, Inc. ("Instadose",
"Mikrocoze", or the "Company") (OTCMKTS: INSD; MZKR) and certain of
its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Instadose securities between December 8, 2020 and November
24, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/insd.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Instadose had performed inadequate due diligence into the
Business Combination and/or ignored significant red flags
associated with Instadose Canada; (2) Instadose's internal controls
and policies were inadequate to detect and/or prevent impermissible
trading activity by control persons of the Company; (3) the
foregoing subjected Instadose to a heightened risk of regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement action; and (4) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/insd or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Instadose you have until February 28, 2022, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
JOHN DEERE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Tractor Repair Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Gault at vice.com reports that a class action lawsuit filed
in Chicago has accused John Deere of running an illegal repair
monopoly. The lawsuit alleged that John Deere has used software
locks and restricted access to repair documentation and tools,
making it very difficult for farmers to fix their own agricultural
equipment, a problem that Motherboard has documented for years and
that lawmakers, the FTC, and even the Biden administration have
acknowledged.
"Farmers have traditionally had the ability to repair and maintain
their own tractors as needed, or else have had the option to bring
their tractors to an independent mechanic," the lawsuit said.
"However, in newer generations of its agricultural equipment, Deere
has deliberately monopolized the market for repair and maintenance
services of its agricultural equipment with Engine Control Units
(ECUs) by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible to
farmers and independent repair shops."
The lawsuit claims John Deere is violating antitrust rules and also
alleges that Deere is illegally "tying" farmers to Deere-authorized
service centers through arbitrary means.
John Deere has increasingly moved toward implementing software
locks tied to repair parts that make it difficult for farmers and
independent mechanics to fix tractors without specialized software
or access from John Deere. It has also lobbied heavily against
proposed legislation that would prevent some of the arbitrary locks
Deere and other companies put on their devices. In recent decades,
the tractor maker has added software suites to its tractors and
other farm equipment that provide helpful services, but also give
the company a measure of control over how the farmer uses the
machine. If a farmer wanted to fix their own John Deere tractor,
they often had to hack it to circumvent the company's software
locks.
The situation is so bad that it's created a boom in the secondary
market. Used tractors are selling for hundreds of thousands of
dollars, in part, because they're easier to repair than modern
machines.
Forest River Farms, a farming corporation in North Dakota, filed
the recent antitrust lawsuit against John Deere, alleging that
"Deere's network of highly-consolidated independent dealerships is
not permitted through their agreements with Deere to provide
farmers or repair shops with access to the same software and repair
tools the Dealerships have."
"As a result of shutting out farmers and independent repair shops
from accessing the necessary resources for repairs, Deere and the
Dealerships have cornered the Deere Repair Services Market in the
United States for Deere-branded agricultural equipment controlled
by ECUs and have derived supracompetitive profits from the sale of
repair and maintenance services," the lawsuit, which repeatedly
cites some of Motherboard's reporting on the issue, continues.
Deere did not immediately respond to a request for comment from
Motherboard and has not yet responded to the lawsuit, according to
the court case's docket report.
The lawsuit is another blow against companies like Apple and John
Deere that want to make it hard for people to fix the stuff they've
bought. John Deere uses software to lock farmers out from making
repairs because it makes a tidy profit from forcing them into
dealerships it controls. It's a practice that's gained a lot of
legislative and activist attention recently.
The lawsuit alleges that, though Deere has made some types of
software and repair parts available to the public, they are
"insufficient to restore competition to the Deere repair services
market," and notes that “there are no legitimate reasons to
restrict access to necessary repair tools."
Last year, President Biden signed an executive order aimed at
making it easier for everyone to fix their own stuff. He also
directed the FTC to formally adopt a pro right-to-repair platform.
Legislation has been introduced in congress that would enshrine the
right-to-repair and similar laws are working their way through
various statehouses across the country. Microsoft's shareholders
have pressed the company to do more for repair and even Apple is
backing away from its monopolistic repair practices.
"If John Deere continues to lock farmers out of repair, the company
may reap what it sows," Kevin O'Reilly, PIRG's Right to Repair
campaign director, said in a statement. "Deere's best bet is to
embrace Right to Repair wholeheartedly and give farmers everything
they need to fix their tractors. Deere's restrictions violate basic
ownership rights, do wrong by farmers and expose the company to
legal ramifications. Hopefully this lawsuit -- together with state
action, pressure from the Biden administration and the FTC's
decision to enforce repair restrictions -- gets the message across:
It's time to let farmers fix their stuff." [GN]
JSW STEEL: Polen Sues Over Production Employees' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON POLEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JSW STEEL USA OHIO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00085-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, January 11, 2022) is brought
against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime
wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as hourly production
employee from 2017 until October of 2021.
JSW Steel USA Ohio, Inc. operates a facility that produces
hot-rolled coiled bands of steel to its customers throughout the
Unites States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd. Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
JUUL LABS: Belmont-Harrison Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BELMONT-HARRISON VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00204 (N.D. Cal., January
12, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Belmont-Harrison Vocational School District is a school district
with its offices located at 68090 Hammond Road in St. Clairsville,
Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Carthage Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARTHAGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00209 (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Carthage Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 25059 Woolworth Street in Carthage, New
York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Cato-Meridian Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
CATO-MERIDIAN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208 (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Cato-Meridian Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 2851 State Route 370 in Cato, New
York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Beaver River Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEAVER RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00207 (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis.
Beaver River Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 9508 Artz Road in Beaver Falls, New
York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Dexter Community Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEXTER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00211 (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Dexter Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 2704 Baker Road in Dexter, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KESSENICH'S LTD: Makaroff Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MAKAROFF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KESSENICH’S LTD. OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00020
(W.D. Wis., January 11, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
regular wages, retaliation and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant into the position of
installer working primarily out of Defendant's Madison, Wisconsin
location from February 2021 to November 10, 2021.
Kessenich's Ltd. of America was founded in 1973. The Company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of equipment and
supplies for personal service establishments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
KFORCE INC: Whiteman Sues Over Recruiters' Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAM WHITEMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KFORCE INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00056 (M.D.
Fla., January 6, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a recruiter from
approximately November 2017 to December 2020.
Kforce Inc. is a professional staffing agency that provides
staffing services to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 S. Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 244-7005
Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
kaburgy@nicholllaw.com
KOBE STEEL: Class Action Lawsuit Over Auto Parts Quality Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Lawyers reports that proposed class actions were brought
against Kobe Steel Limited, Shinko Metal Products Co., Ltd., Shinko
Aluminum Wire Co., Ltd., Shinko Wire Stainless Company Ltd.,
KOBELCO & Materials Copper Tube Co. and Nippon Koshuha Steel Co.,
Ltd. In British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These claims relate
to auto parts quality control in Japan.
These claims have now been settled.
A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available at:
https://www.callkleinlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/01-Settlement-Agreement-National.pdf
[GN]
KURA SUSHI: Hearing on Initial Settlement Approval Set for May 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that a court
hearing over preliminary approval of a class action settlement has
been scheduled for May 9, 2022.
On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee, Brandy Gomes, in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. On
July 9, 2020, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action. In addition, the first amended class
action complaint added new causes of action alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws including a cause of action brought
under the California Private Attorney General Act.
On August 7, 2020, the company filed its answer to the first
amended complaint, generally denying the allegations in the
complaint. In May 2021, a joint stipulation was filed requesting a
delay in the class certification hearing date to March 3, 2022, and
a mediation was scheduled for September 24, 2021.
During the mediation, a settlement was agreed upon in the amount of
$1.75 million. The company recorded an accrued liability of $1.78
million, including an estimated $30,000 in employer payroll taxes,
related to this settlement within general and administrative
expenses in the statements of operations during the fiscal year
ended August 31, 2021.
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a Japanese restaurant based in California.
LADERA LENDING: Fabricant Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LADERA LENDING, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00235
(C.D. Cal., January 11, 2022) seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant allegedly called Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit
its services beginning in or around July 30, 2018. The Defendant
never received Plaintiff' "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on their cellular telephone.
The Plaintiff contends Defendant violated the Do-Not-Call
provisions of the TCPA for telemarketing purposes.
Ladera Lending, Inc. is a finance company with its principal place
of business in Ladera Ranch, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
LEE'S SUMMIT: Myers Appeals Conditional Cert. Ruling in Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stacie Myers, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled NANCY SPATZ, DAWN CARL, GAIL
GRYGAR, CHERYL PETERSON, TERI HARGRAVE, HEATHER KENNEY, JODI
MALLETTE, BETH RATTY, STACY ORF and BROOKE MOREHEAD, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEE'S
SUMMIT R-7 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00448-RK,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri -
Kansas City.
The lawsuit arises from Defendant's alleged gender discrimination
and unlawful employment practices in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Plaintiffs were females employed by Defendant as field technology
specialists.
Plaintiffs claim that they were paid by Defendant less than male
field technology specialists who perform the same work that
requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Also, male field
technology specialists with lesser years of service were promoted
faster than female field technology specialists with longer years
of service.
Moreover, female principals with their doctorate are placed lower
on the salary scale than male principals without their doctorates.
On November 30, 2021, District Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an
order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a collective action and granting
Defendant's partial motion to dismiss.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 9, 2021,
Defendant Lee's Summit moved for modification of the Court's
November 30, 2021 order granting in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification.
Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court remove female
Technology Specialists from the conditionally certified class,
because the two named plaintiffs within that employee
classification (Nancy Spatz and Jill Besanceney) had settled their
claims before the Court entered its order.
Ms. Spatz and Ms. Besanceney effectively settled their claims
before the Court conditionally certified a class, and but for the
fact that their counsel had an arbitration soon after the November
9 mediation, they likely would have signed their settlement
agreements and dismissed their claims before the date of the
Court's order. Because they have settled their claims though, they
cannot serve as class representatives. The Court should therefore
modify its November 30 order so that the class will consist only of
Elementary Assistant Principals, the Defendants contend.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the November 30, 2021 order by
Judge Ketchmark.
The appellate case is captioned as Stacie Myers, et al. v. Lee's
Summit R-7 School District, Case No. 22-1016, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on January 3,
2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Stacie Myers, Jessica Hill, Rhonda Ireland,
and Michelle Michaelson-Gard are represented by:
George Kapke, Jr., Esq.
KAPKE & WILLERTH
3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
Telephone: (816) 461-3800
E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com
- and -
Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq.
KLAMANN LAW FIRM
4435 Main Street, Suite 150
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (913) 327-7600
E-mail: ajs@klamannlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Lee's Summit R-7 School District is represented
by:
William J. Hatley, Esq.
Stephanie Lovett-Bowman, Esq.
Brian E. Peterson, Esq.
SPENCER & FANE
1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
Telephone: (816) 474-8100
E-mail: jhatley@spencerfane.com
slovettbowman@spencerfane.com
bpeterson@spencerfane.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Charalambous Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEX CHARALAMBOUS and BRIAN PULLEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC., and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 21CV000432, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
January 12, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00216 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to reimburse
business expenses in violation of the California Labor Code.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company based in
Massachusetts.
Liberty Mutual Group Inc. is an insurance company based in
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Wendy M. Lazerson, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1001 Page Mill Rd., Building 1
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 565-7000
Facsimile: (650) 565-7100
E-mail: wlazerson@sidley.com
- and –
Katherine A. Roberts, Esq.
Abigail Hudson, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
E-mail: kate.roberts@sidley.com
abigail.hudson@sidley.com
MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Minor League Salaries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Major League Baseball and all 30 teams have
routinely and openly colluded to restrict and depress the wages and
compensation paid to minor league players.
The 57-page antitrust lawsuit filed in Puerto Rico says that in
order to "monopolize" minor leaguers and keep their salaries below
market rates, the "MLB cartel" has utilized a reserve clause
provision in players' contracts. The reserve clause allows a team
to retain the contractual rights to a player and restrict their
movement and ability to negotiate with other teams for baseball
services and compensation, the suit states.
More broadly, the reserve clause at issue preserves MLB's status as
the lone decision-maker in its minor league system, as it illegally
keeps artificially low the compensation paid to players and
restricts their contractual mobility, the lawsuit alleges.
"Defendants' conspiracy and agreement to restrain trade in the
market for the employment of minor league baseball players has had
an adverse effect on interstate commerce in Puerto Rico and
nationwide by lowering the compensation minor leaguers receive and
spend throughout the United States," the plaintiff, a former minor
leaguer in the Kansas City Royals' system, argues.
According to the lawsuit, the fact that minor leaguers, who are
acquired by teams through either an amateur draft or free agency,
do not belong to a union has allowed the MLB and its teams to keep
players' wages artificially low. The case alleges that since MLB
controls entry into the highest levels of baseball, and given young
players' strong desire to enter the industry, the defendants have
"exploited" minor leaguers by paying anti-competitive, fixed
salaries below the minimum wage and without overtime pay, and
sometimes by paying no wages at all.
Per the suit, the amateur draft implemented by MLB in 1965, now
called the Rule 4 draft, has limited players 18 to 22 years old
from the U.S. and abroad looking to enter the league's
developmental system to negotiating only with the team that drafted
them. MLB rules dictate that each team use the same uniform player
contract (UPC) when signing previously unsigned amateur players,
and these contracts grant an MLB team the exclusive rights to a
player for roughly seven years, the case says.
As the lawsuit tells it, MLB has intentionally set the rules so as
to allow minor league teams to sign Latin American players from the
Dominican Republic and Venezuela as early as the age of 16. Over 40
percent of all minor league baseball player signees are Latin
American, the case says.
Although the team who holds the rights to a player can in turn
assign those rights to any other team, and MLB may terminate a
player's UPC at any time for almost any reason, a minor leaguer is
afforded no such mobility, the complaint stresses.
"The UPC traps a player in the minor leagues of a single
organization," the lawsuit says. "A minor leaguer selected in the
amateur draft can only sign with the MLB team that drafted him. For
the next seven years, the MLB team controls the minor leaguer's
rights."
By the time a player's UPC expires, much of the minor leaguer's
value as a young prospect has diminished because the player has
aged, the complaint relays.
According to the lawsuit, salaries beyond a minor leaguer's first
year are fixed and similar across all franchises. The suit states
that MLB currently imposes a salary of less than $12,000 per year
for Rookie- and Short Season Class A-level baseball; $14,400 per
year for Class AA; and $16,800 per year for AAA ball. Salaries are
paid to minor leaguers only while the season is occurring, or
typically five months out of the year, according to the case.
Despite being compensated for only a portion of the calendar year,
minor leaguers are required by MLB's UPC to perform professional
services on a yearly basis, the filing states.
The proposed class action marks the latest attempt by players to
chip away at MLB's long-held exemption from federal antitrust laws.
In 2020, MLB cut ties amid the pandemic with 43 minor league
franchises nationwide, about a quarter of the teams in the minor
league system, in a move seen by many, including members of
Congress, as a greed-based blow to talent development, fan loyalty
and communities far from a major league team or where tickets to
major league games are cost-prohibitive.
More recently, MLB locked out its own players at 12:01 a.m. on
December 2, 2021 as the 2016 collective bargaining agreement
between the two sides expired. Issues at the center of baseball's
latest labor trouble concern compensation for young players and
placing limitations on teams "tanking" during the season so as to
gain higher slots in the MLB draft. [GN]
MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING: Zutantas Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Zutantas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Meridian Senior Living LLC, Defendants,
Case No. CACE-22-000352 (Fla. Cir., January 7, 2022), seeks an
award of all damages and statutory penalties, actual wages due,
award of costs and attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post judgment
interest and such other and further relief resulting from breach of
contract and violations of Florida law.
Meridian Senior Living is an operator of assisted living facilities
with multiple locations and employees working in the State of
Florida where Zutantas worked as a Sales Director from 2019 to
2021. She claims to have worked in excess of forty hours per week
without being paid overtime premiums. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
David Frank, Esq.
WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3 3 316
Tel: (954) 463-2001
Fax: (954) 463-0410
Email: cjw@wbitelocklegal.com
davidfrank@whitelocklegal.com
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Ruling in Goyette Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Minneapolis, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jared Goyette, Craig Lassig, The
Communications Workers of America, Tannen Maury, Katie Nelson,
Stephen Maturen, Edward Ou, Timothy Evans, and Chris Tuite,
Plaintiffs v. City of Minneapolis, Medaria Arradondo, Robert Kroll,
John Harrington, Matthew Langer, John Does 1–2, David Hutchinson,
and Joseph Dwyer, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-01302, in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The Plaintiffs allege that Kroll implicitly and explicitly directed
officers to use unnecessary force on the citizens of Minneapolis
"by thwarting discipline and enabling a culture and practice of
immunity from sanction for constitutional violations." The
Plaintiffs assert that Kroll used his power as a law enforcement
officer to cloak his policy goals in state power, and that he used
the Federation's financial and political power to exert influence
over the MPD's customs and practices. Plaintiffs contend that the
MPD's unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, which
resulted in injuries to Plaintiffs, derive "at least in part from
the acts done under the color of state law by Kroll." As such, the
SAC plausibly alleges that Kroll is a willful participant in any
conspiracy with the State Defendants and City Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs plausibly allege facts establishing that
Kroll, as a private actor, was a willful participant in the
conspiracy who acted in concert with the State Defendants and City
Defendants. The Court, therefore, denies Kroll's motion to
dismiss.
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd died as a result of an encounter with
four officers of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD). Video of
the encounter captured by bystanders shows the MPD officers placing
Floyd in handcuffs and pinning him to the ground face down, while
then-officer Derek Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck. Floyd and several
bystanders pleaded with Officer Chauvin to change his position to
allow Floyd to breathe. Officer Chauvin refused and continued to
kneel on Floyd's neck for several minutes after Floyd became
unresponsive. Video of the encounter circulated rapidly, and
hundreds of citizens began protesting in Minneapolis and Saint
Paul, as well as nationally and around the world.
On May 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.
On October 28, 2021, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order
granting Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
The Defendants now seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Goyette et al. v. City of
Minneapolis et al., Case No. 22-1017, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on January 4, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants City of Minneapolis; Minneapolis Chief of
Police Medaria Arradondo in his individual and official capacity;
Minneapolis Police Lieutenant Robert Kroll, in his individual and
official capacity; Minnesota Department of Public Safety
Commissioner John Harrington, in his individual and official
capacity, Minnesota State Patrol Colonel Matthew Langer, in his
individual and official capacity; Minnesota State Patrol Major
Joseph Dwyer, in his individual capacity; Hennepin County Sheriff
David Hutchinson, in his individual and official capacity; John
Does 1-10, in their individual and official capacities, are
represented by:
Kathryn Iverson Landrum, Esq.
Joseph Weiner, Esq.
Alexander W. Hsu, Esq.
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400
St. Paul, MN 55101-2131
Telephone: (651) 757-1189
Facsimile: (651) 282-5832
E-mail: kathryn.landrum@ag.state.mn.us
joseph.weiner@ag.state.mn.us
alexander.hsu@ag.state.mn.us
NEW YORK CITY, NY: CNS Partners Sues Over Required Vaccination
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNS Partners, Inc. d/b/a Cornerstone Realty, individually, and for
all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ERIC L.
ADAMS, MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, and DAVE A.CHOKSHI, COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00037-AMD-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022),
is brought against the Defendants for the Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene's (DOHMH) Order to Require COVID-19 Vaccination in
the Workplace, which requires private employers to verify its
workers' proof of COVID-19 vaccination.
The Plaintiff Cornerstone Realty and members of the Class are
businesses in New York City that will be deprived of their
interests under the DOHMH's Order to Require COVID-19 Vaccination
in the Workplace, which requires private employers to verify its
workers' proof of COVID-19 vaccination. This case is not about
vaccines, but about an employer's right to be heard when the DOHMH
and the City pass a sweeping—and first in the nation—law meant
to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
The DOHMH maintains that it is the employer's decision whether to
discipline or fire such workers who are not vaccinated against
COVID-19 or, in the alternative, employers can require workers to
work remotely. But in the practice, the DOHMH Order forces
employers, such as Cornerstone Realty, a real estate company, to
terminate its workers because remote work is impossible for every
worker. If Cornerstone Realty and other businesses have workers who
cannot work remotely or be readily replaced, the only
option—other than to retain unproductive workers on the
payroll—is to terminate such workers.
As the last two years of the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, remote
work is impossible for Cornerstone Realty's agents, who must be
physically present to show or list properties. Businesses like
Cornerstone Realty are similarly situated across New York City. The
DOHMH Order does not provide a notice period for Cornerstone Realty
or other businesses to enforce the DOHMH Order, which, if
businesses are forced to terminate workers, harms such businesses.
Moreover, if a business fails to comply with the DOHMH Order,
employers are subject—without any process for a hearing that
takes into account a business's operation—to a fine of $1,000 and
escalating penalties thereafter if violations persist. Nowhere in
the process does the City or the DOHMH consider the employer's
liberty or property interests in its fight against the COVID-19
pandemic. The DOHMH Order, therefore, deprives businesses a
necessary right to be heard, which is guaranteed under the
Procedural Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Cornerstone Realty is a real estate company based in
Staten Island, New York.
The Defendant City is a municipal corporation within the State of
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Fonte
Louis M. Gelormino
F&G LEGAL GROUP
2550 Victory Blvd.
Staten Island, NY 10314
Phone: (917) 968-1619
Email: mfontelaw@yahoo.com
louiegels@hotmail.com
OAK STREET: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired Oak Street Health, Inc. ("Oak Street" or the "Company")
(NYSE: OSH) securities between August 6, 2020, and November 8,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased Oak Street securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Oak Street
Health, Inc Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
Oak Street purportedly operates primary care centers within the
United States. Oak Street claims that it "engages Medicare eligible
patients through the use of an innovative community outreach
approach." The Company claims it contracts with health plans to
generate medical costs savings and realize a return on its
investment in primary care. As of December 31, 2020, Oak Street
claims to have operated 79 centers in 16 markets across 11 states,
which provided care for approximately 97,000 patients.
According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Oak Street maintained relationships with third-party
marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2)
Oak Street was providing free transportation to federal health care
beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke law enforcement
scrutiny; (3) these activities may be violations of the False
Claims Act; (4) Oak Street was at heightened risk of investigation
by the DOJ and/or other federal law enforcement agencies; and (5)
Oak Street was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and
settlement costs and diversion of management resources.
On November 8, 2021, Oak Street filed its third quarter quarterly
report with the SEC on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2021. Therein, the Company, in relevant part, disclosed that on
November 1, 2021 the Company received a civil investigative demand
("CID") from the DOJ. According to the CID, the DOJ was
investigating whether the Company violated the False Claims Act.
The CID also requested documents and information related to Oak
Street's relationships with "third-party marketing agents" and Oak
Street's "provision of free transportation to federal health care
beneficiaries." When this information reached the market, the
Company's share price fell $9.75, or more than 20%, to close at
$37.14 per share on November 9, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Oak Street securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/oakstreethealthinc-osh-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-478/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
OAK STREET: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Jan. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Oak Street Health, Inc. ("Oak Street" or the
"Company") (NYSE: OSH) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Oak Street securities between
August 6, 2020 and November 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until March 11, 2022 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On November 8, 2021, Oak Street disclosed that on November 1, 2021
the Company received a civil investigative demand ("CID") from the
United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). According to the CID,
the DOJ was investigating whether the Company violated the False
Claims Act. The CID also requests documents and information related
to the Oak Street's relationships with "third-party marketing
agents" and Oak Street's "provision of free transportation to
federal health care beneficiaries."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.75, or more than
20%, to close at $37.14 per share on November 9, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Oak Street maintained relationships with
third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement
scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street was providing free transportation to
federal health care beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke
law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that these activities may be
violations of the False Claims Act; (4) that, as such, Oak Street
was at heightened risk of investigation by the DOJ and/or other
federal law enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a result, Oak Street
was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement
costs and diversion of management resources; and (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Oak Street shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone
at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
OAK STREET: Gainey McKenna Reminds of March 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 12 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Oak Street Health, Inc. ("Oak
Street") (NYSE: OSH) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who purchased
Oak Street's common stock between August 6, 2020 and November 8,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Oak Street
maintained relationships with third-party marketing agents likely
to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street was
providing free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries
in a manner that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that
these activities may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4)
that, as such, Oak Street was at heightened risk of investigation
by the U.S. Department of Justice and/or other federal law
enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a result, Oak Street was subject
to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement costs and
diversion of management resources; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Oak Street
should contact the Firm prior to the March 14, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
OAK STREET: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Oak Street Health, Inc. ("Oak Street" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSH)
securities between August 6, 2020 and November 8, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Oak Street investors have until March 14,
2022 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Oak Street investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On November 8, 2021, Oak Street disclosed that on November 1, 2021
the Company received a civil investigative demand ("CID") from the
United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). According to the CID,
the DOJ was investigating whether the Company violated the False
Claims Act. The CID also requests documents and information related
to the Oak Street's relationships with "third-party marketing
agents" and Oak Street's "provision of free transportation to
federal health care beneficiaries."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.75, or more than
20%, to close at $37.14 per share on November 9, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Oak Street maintained relationships with
third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement
scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street was providing free transportation to
federal health care beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke
law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that these activities may be
violations of the False Claims Act; (4) that, as such, Oak Street
was at heightened risk of investigation by the DOJ and/or other
federal law enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a result, Oak Street
was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement
costs and diversion of management resources; and (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Oak Street securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
OAK STREET: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Oak Street Health, Inc. ("Oak Street" or the
"Company") (NYSE: OSH) between August 6, 2020 and November 8, 2021.
You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oak-street-health-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=4
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Oak Street Health, Inc. NEWS - OSH NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the Oak Street lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
that Oak Street maintained relationships with third-party marketing
agents likely to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) that Oak
Street was providing free transportation to federal health care
beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke law enforcement
scrutiny; (3) that these activities may be violations of the False
Claims Act; (4) that, as such, Oak Street was at heightened risk of
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and/or other
federal law enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a result, Oak Street
was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement
costs and diversion of management resources; and (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Oak
Street you have until March 14, 2022 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Oak Street securities between
August 6, 2020 and November 8, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oak-street-health-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=4
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
OM TREE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers/Supervisors
------------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OMAR SANDOVAL and MARTIN ERIC SANDOVAL,
individually and doing business as OM TREE SERVICE, Defendants,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00114 (S.D. Tex., January 12, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly
situated laborers and supervisors overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Mr. Garcia worked for the Defendants as a laborer and then
supervisor from early 2020 until January 7, 2022.
OM Tree Service is a residential and commercial tree service
company in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
ORVIS COMPANY: Sells and Rents Mailing Lists With Customers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ORVIS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00007-cr (D. Vt., January 12, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the California Right of
Publicity Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of selling
and renting mailing lists containing the personally identifiable
information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers
on the open market to anyone interested in purchasing them without
obtaining prior express consent. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have been
injured.
The Orvis Company, Inc. is a retail and mail-order business that
maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in
Sunderland, Vermont. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron T. Morris, Esq.
MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
3391 Mountain Road, Unit 4
Stowe, VT 05672
Telephone: (332) 240-4024
E-mail: aaron@moka.law
- and –
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: thedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
OVH GROUPE: 70 Customers Pursue Class Action Over Data Center Fire
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Donnelly, writing for ComputerWeekly.com, reports that
OVHCloud is being pursued for compensation, through a class action
lawsuit, by 70 of its customers who claim to have lost data when
the French public cloud firm's datacentre in Strasbourg burned down
in March 2021.
The class action is being overseen by Parisian law firm Ziegler &
Associates, which confirmed in a statement to Computer Weekly that
it is seeking "justice and compensation" amounting to EUR1.9m on
behalf of its clients.
Work on the class action is understood to have begun in November
2021, with seven companies initially expressing an interest in
seeking damages from OVHCloud after losing data in the fire.
In a follow-up statement to Computer Weekly, a spokesperson for
Ziegler & Associates said it anticipates -- by the end of this
month -- a further 30 OVHCloud customers will have signed up to
join its class action.
The class action's participants are known to include medical firms
which claim to have lost prescription- and diagnosis-related data
belonging to their patients because of the fire. There were also
some travel and tourism companies affected by the fire that were
left with incomplete reservation data, meaning they did not know
the dates or type of accommodation their clients had booked.
Firms in the marketing sector were also affected, as they are
understood to have lost data that prevented their clients from
invoicing for products or required them to rebuild their websites
from scratch.
"The companies have lost their leading position on the Google
search engine, which has been beneficial to their competitors but
has created a drop in turnover for our customers. Some of them have
even called on expensive service providers to try to recreate their
websites," a representative for Ziegler & Associates told Computer
Weekly in a follow-up statement.
The OVHCloud fire saw the firm lose one datacentre in its
Strasbourg server farm campus in France, while another on the site
incurred damage. The after-effects of the event were felt for
several weeks, as the firm raced to bring its clients' applications
and workloads back online in a timely manner.
The cause of the fire was initially attributed to a faulty
uninterruptible power supply unit on the site, but - in the wake of
the fire - the firm maintained that establishing the root cause was
still the subject of an ongoing investigation.
The legal firm claims one of the affected companies has already
made an abortive attempt to take legal action against OVHCloud on
its own, which the tech firm allegedly responded to by putting
forward four arguments. According to Ziegler & Associates, none of
these are "legally admissible".
These arguments include the claim that "no fault would be
attributable to OVH", that the fire itself should be classified as
an unforeseen event, and that the company is not responsible for
any "indirect damage" that occurred as a result of the incident.
"The firm can easily prove that additional security measures could
have been taken, especially when the backups were on the same
server as the originals. . . and the conditions for invoking force
majeure [the unforeseen circumstances defence] are not met," said
Ziegler & Associates, in its statement. "Since the case of force
majeure cannot be involved, OVH's responsibility is engaged."
The law firm added: "An official letter from Ziegler & Associates
will be sent to OVH by the end of March. The appeal remains open to
companies that would like to join it."
Computer Weekly contacted OVHCloud for a response to Ziegler &
Associates' class action, but was told the company is unable to
comment before the particulars of the legal act. [GN]
PENSKE TRUCK: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP, and PENSKE
TRUCK LEASING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00020-LPR
(E.D. Ark., January 12, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated hourly-paid employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee from June of 2017
until November of 2021.
Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP is a truck rental company based in
Little Rock, Arkansas.
Penske Truck Leasing Corporation is a truck rental company based in
Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Short, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
PHARMALLY INTERNATIONAL: Investors' Center Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kao Shih-ching, writing for Taipei Times, reports that the
Securities and Futures Investors Protection Center last year filed
11 class-action lawsuits on behalf of 7,982 investors, with the
largest against Pharmally International Holding Co involving 4,700
complainants, the center said on Jan. 12.
The biotechnology company allegedly forged financial statements and
had been unable to submit audited reports since the first quarter
of 2020 before it was delisted in April last year, leaving
thousands of shareholders out of pocket.
The center filed a lawsuit against Pharmally International at the
Taipei District Court on behalf of 4,700 investors, seeking total
compensation of NT$5.4 billion (US$195.17 million), center
chairwoman Chang Hsin-ti told a news conference in Taipei.
It was the largest case the center has dealt with since it filed
suits against Pacific Electric Wire and Cable Co on behalf of
24,772 investors in 2011 and XPEC Entertainment Inc on behalf of
19,620 investors in 2016, its data showed.
The judicial process should be smooth in Taiwan, but even if
Pharmally International loses the case, there would be some
challenges regarding how to execute orders by domestic courts
abroad, as the firm has assets in China and Southeast Asia, Chang
said.
After the Commercial Case Adjudication Act took effect in July last
year, the center has filed five lawsuits at commercial courts, with
investors demanding more than NT$100 million in total compensation,
she said.
The five lawsuits are against Dukang Distillers Holdings Ltd, ASE
Technology Holding Co, Roo Hsing Co, Chernan Metal Industrial Corp
and Topower Co, Chang said.
The center sued Roo Hsing, one of the world's largest manufacturers
of denim jeans, as its prospectus was allegedly false, and brought
ASE to the court as investors encountered losses due to insider
trading, it said.
Those cases would be reviewed at a faster pace at commercial
courts, the center said.
The center won 10 cases with combined compensation of about NT$2.7
billion last year, it said.
The center, which has 12 lawyers and 30 employees, plans to recruit
two or three additional lawyers to enhance its capabilities, Chang
said. [GN]
PPL CORPORATION: Mismanaged Retirement Plans, Binder Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID B. BINDER, JANET L. BRETT, GEORGE KNEBEL, TODD A. MESSNER,
and DEBORAH SHOBE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PPL CORPORATION; PPL SERVICES
CORPORATION; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PPL CORPORATION; BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF PPL SERVICES CORPORATION; EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN BOARD
OF PPL CORPORATION; LG&E AND KU ENERGY LLC; and JOHN DOES 1–14,
Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00133 (E.D. Pa., January 12, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duties and failure to monitor fiduciaries under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to act prudently
and diligently as fiduciaries to the PPL Employee Savings Plan, PPL
Deferred Savings Plan, PPL Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and the
LG&E and KU Savings Plan because they retained a suite of unproven
collective investment trust target date funds as investment options
in the Plans, known as the Northern Trust Focus Funds. The Focus
Funds suffered from significant and ongoing quantitative
deficiencies and managerial turnover resulting in massive
underperformance relative to that of well-established, prudently
managed, comparable target date funds that were available to the
Plans. Given these deficiencies, a prudent fiduciary would have
removed the Focus Funds and replaced them with a prudent investment
alternative. The Defendants selected and retained higher-cost
investments of the Focus Funds when identically managed, yet
lower-cost investments, were readily available. As a result of the
Defendants' mismanagement of the Plans, the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated Plan participants suffered losses, says the
suit.
PPL Corporation is an energy company, with its headquarters located
in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
PPL Services Corporation is a subsidiary of PPL Corporation, with
its headquarters located in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
LG&E and KU Energy LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of PPL
Corporation, with its headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Promisloff, Esq.
PROMISLOFF LAW, P.C.
5 Great Valley Parkway, Suite 210
Malvern, PA 19355
Telephone: (215) 259-5156
Facsimile: (215) 600-2642
E-mail: david@prolawpa.com
- and –
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Troy A. Doles, Esq.
Heather Lea, Esq.
Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO, 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Kuznicki Law Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NasdaqGM:
RETA), if they purchased the Company's securities, and/or sold put
options between November 9, 2020 and December 8, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until February 18, 2022 to
file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action
lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgm-reta/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/,
by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email
(dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]
REMAX HOLDINGS: Anti-trust Suits Pending in US District Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
REMAX Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2021, that the
company is a defendant in class action complaints referred to as
the "Moehrl-related suits" which allege violations of federal
antitrust law.
The first was filed on March 6, 2019, by plaintiff Christopher
Moehrl in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The second was filed in the same court on
April 15, 2019, by plaintiff Sawbill Strategic, Inc. These two
actions have now been consolidated. Similar actions have been filed
in federal courts, namely, by Joshua Sitzer and other plaintiffs in
the Western District of Missouri, by Mark Rubenstein and Jeffery
Nolan in the District of Connecticut, by plaintiff Jennifer Nosalek
in the District of Massachusetts and by plaintiff Judah Leeder in
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints make
substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar
relief. For convenience, all of these lawsuits are collectively
referred to as the "Moehrl-related suits." In the Moehrl action,
the plaintiffs allege that a National Association of Realtors (NAR)
rule requires brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of
buyer broker compensation when listing a property, resulting in
inflated costs to sellers in violation of federal antitrust law.
They further allege that certain defendants use their agreements
with franchisees to require adherence to the NAR rule in violation
of federal antitrust law.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) also agreed to settle a suit with
the National Association of Realtors in which the latter agreed to
adopt certain rule changes, such as increased disclosure of
commission offers from sellers' agents to buyers' agents, but the
direct and indirect effects, if any, of the settlement upon the
real estate industry are not yet entirely clear.
Moreover, the Moehrl-related suits seek additional changes in real
estate industry practices beyond the changes NAR agreed to in the
DOJ settlement. Further, these lawsuits have prompted discussion of
regulatory changes to rules established by local or state real
estate boards or multiple listing services.
Although the settlement between NAR and the DOJ does not require
changes to agent and broker compensation, the resolution of the
Moehrl-related suits and/or other regulatory changes may require
changes to the company or their brokers’ business models,
including changes in agent and broker compensation. This could
reduce the fees the company receives from their franchisees, which,
in turn, could adversely affect their financial condition and
results of operations.
REMAX Holdings Inc. is in to real estate agents and managers based
in Colorado.
RENO CAB: Pomer Sues Over Taxicab Drivers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT POMER, ALLAN ARTEAGA-BROWN, and MICHAEL MAIENSCHEIN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. RENO CAB COMPANY, ROY L. STREET, ROBIN STREET, FRANK STREET, and
BRITTANY STREET, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00014 (D. Nev.,
January 10, 2022) seeks relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wages.
The Plaintiffs and the class members of the proposed collective
action allegedly did not, during every work week, receive the
minimum wage of at least $7.25 an hour required by Section 206 of
the FLSA. The Defendants' violations of the FLSA were willful and
intentional, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are current or former taxicab driver employees of
the Defendants.
Reno Cab Company provides transportation by automobiles such as
taxicabs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Curtis B. Coulter, Esq.
Stacey Upson, Esq.
COULTER HARSH LAW
403 Hill Street
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 324-3380
Facsimile: (775) 324-3381
E-mail: ccoulter@coulterlaw.net
- and -
Leon Greenberg, Esq.
Ruthann Devereaux-Gonzalez, Esq.
LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2965 South Jones Blvd-Suite E3
Las Vegas, NV 89146
Telephone: (702) 383-6085
Facsimile: (702) 385-1827
E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com
ranni@overtimelaw.com
RICHLAND HOLDINGS: Rodgers Sues Over Abusive Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA RODGERS, Plaintiff v. RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC. dba ACCTCORP
OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, and DONNA ARMENTA LAW, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00042 (D. Nev., January 10, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated, arising from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful and abusive conduct to collect a
debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Sometime before around September of 2019, Plaintiff allegedly
incurred financial obligations to an original creditor, R.C. Willy
Home Furnishings located in Henderson, Nevada, primarily for
personal, family or household purposes, which was a "debt" as that
term is defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(5).
The Defendants' alleged conduct violated the law by using false
representations and deceptive means in connection with its attempts
to collect the debt from Plaintiff.
Richland Holdings is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
RITE AID: Price Rigging Suit Shelved in S.D. Cal. Pending Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended November 27, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2022, that a
consolidated class action lawsuit involving the company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California captioned "Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp." A separate
lawsuit, "Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp.," was consolidated with
this lawsuit in November, 2019. Said consolidate case was stayed
pending mediation.
The lawsuit contains allegations that the company was obligated to
charge the plaintiffs' insurance companies its usual and customary
prices for their prescription drugs and that it failed to do so
because the prices it reported were not equal to or adjusted to
account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to uninsured and
underinsured customers through its Rx Savings Program.
Although a stay pending the company's unsuccessful attempt to
compel arbitration has been lifted, the cases are now stayed
pending mediation of these matters and another lawsuit raising
usual and customary pricing allegations filed in the United States
District Court for Pennsylvania.
Rite Aid Corporation is a healthcare company with a retail
footprint based in Pennsylvania.
RITE AID: Price Rigging Suit Shelved in S.D. Cal. Pending Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended November 27, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2022, that a
consolidated class action lawsuit involving the company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California captioned "Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp," has been
consolidated with the lawsuit, "Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp.,"
in November 2019. The consolidate case has been stayed pending
mediation.
The lawsuit alleges the company was obligated to charge the
plaintiffs' insurance companies its usual and customary prices for
their prescription drugs and that it failed to do so because the
prices it reported were not equal to or adjusted to account for the
prices that Rite Aid offers to uninsured and underinsured customers
through its Rx Savings Program.
Although a stay pending the company's unsuccessful attempt to
compel arbitration has been lifted, the cases are now stayed
pending mediation of these matters and another lawsuit raising
usual and customary pricing allegations filed in the United States
District Court for Pennsylvania.
Rite Aid Corporation is a healthcare company with a retail
footprint based in Pennsylvania.
RITE AID: Settlement for Labor Cases Pending in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended November 27, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2022, that
settlements for several lawsuits filed in courts in California over
allegations regarding violations of the California Business and
Professions Code, various California employment laws and
regulations, industry wage orders, wage-and-hour laws, rules and
regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay premiums for missed meals and rest periods, failure
to provide accurate wage statements and failure to reimburse
business expenses, all remain subject to court approval.
Some of the California cases purport or may be determined to be
class actions or representative actions under the California
Private Attorneys General Act and seek substantial damages and
penalties. These single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff California
Cases in the aggregate, seek substantial damages.
In June 2021, the company agreed to settle two of the California
cases in which the plaintiffs brought class-based claims alleging
that they and all other similarly-situated associates were not paid
for time waiting for their bags to be checked.
One set of cases involving store associates was settled for $9
million, while the other involving distribution center associates
was settled for $1.75 million.
On October 1, 2021, the company agreed to settle for $12 million
allegations made by a purported class of California store
associates that it required such associates to purchase uniforms.
These settlements remain subject to court approval.
In August 2021, the Company paid approximately $8 million in
connection with a single-plaintiff matter after exhausting
appeals.
Rite Aid Corporation is a healthcare company with a retail
footprint based in Pennsylvania.
RPS HOLDINGS: Appeals Denial of Arbitration Motion in James Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPS Holdings, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled SIOBHAN JAMES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. RPS HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a CAPITAL
CABARET, Case No. 1:20-cv-00134-UA-LPA, in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina at
Greensboro.
The lawsuit is a class action wherein Plaintiffs seek payment for
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, back-pay,
restitution, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, and all related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant took an unlawful adverse
employment action against James when she complained about being
verbally harassed and physically abused which created a hostile
work environment, leading to Plaintiff being placed in a
life-threatening situation.
On March 9, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion to certify
class conditionally as a collective action and for a
court-authorized notice to be issued under Section 216(b) of the
FLSA.
On March 19, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration.
On December 13, 2021, Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld entered an
order denying the Defendant's new arbitration motion and granting
in part and denying in part Plaintiff's new certification, motion
such that Plaintiff must revise the notice in a manner consistent
with this Order; the opt-in period shall last until March 13,
2022.
The Defendant now seeks a review of the order denying its motion to
compel arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as RPS Holdings, LLC v. Siobhan
James, Case No. 22-1027, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on January 7, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on February 16, 2022; and
-- Response Brief is due on March 18, 2022.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant RPS HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a Capital Cabaret, is
represented by:
Luke Charles Lirot, Esq.
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, P.A.
2240 Belleair Road
Clearwater, FL 33764
Telephone: (727) 536-2100
E-mail: office@lirotlaw.com
- and -
Michael Waldo Strickland, Esq.
MICHAEL W. STRICKLAND & ASSOCIATES
301 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 571-3898
E-mail: mstrickland@stricklandlaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee SIOBHAN JAMES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
- and -
Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
RUNNING WAREHOUSE: Gasnick Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Laurie Gasnick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Running Warehouse LLC, Tackle Warehouse
LLC, Tennis Warehouse LLC and Skate Warehouse LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 22-cv-00101 (C.D. Cal., January 5, 2022), seeks injunctive and
other equitable relief in violation of the California Customer
Records Act, California Unfair Competition Law and from the failure
to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information
and protected information acquired from or created for its
employees, including without limitation, names, addresses, dates of
birth, patient identification numbers, Social Security numbers,
driver's license/state ID numbers, passport numbers, credit/debit
card information and financial account information.
Defendants are a group of online retailers specializing in products
relating to certain industries, namely fishing, tennis, running,
and skateboarding. On or about October 1, 2021, it experienced a
data breach through which unauthorized individuals accessed
personal data of its customers. Laurie Gasnick placed an order for
running shoes on or about July 18, 2020. She checked out using her
bank debit card.
On or about October 18, 2021, Ms. Gasnick claimed to have received
a targeted scam phone call from a criminal posing as a
representative from her bank regarding fraudulent charges on her
account. The criminal had all of her account information to pose as
an account representative. The alleged scammer, posing as the bank
representative, convinced her to set up a new Zelle account at the
bank. Following the establishment of the account, the scammer
arranged for $1,000 to be transferred to an outside account without
her authorization. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 24
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM, LLC
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Anti-trust Raps in Various District Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2021, that
between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and their subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two
cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer
plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding
captioned "In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation."
On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.
On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and its
subsidiaries and another poultry producer. The plaintiffs
subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the Eastern
District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for
pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support thereof. That
motion was denied.
Sanderson Farms Inc. is in to poultry slaughtering and processing
based in Mississippi.
SCORES HOLDING: De Oliveira Labor Suit Pending in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2022,
that an ongoing labor suit docketed Luisa Santos de Oliveira v.
Scores Holding Company Inc., Club Azure LLC, Robert Gans, Mark S.
Yackow, Howard Rosenbluth, Case 1:18-cv-06769-GBD (July 27, 2018)
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
A Scheduling order for the class action lawsuit was entered and all
discovery was due on May 27, 2021.
On October 8, 2018, the company was served with a summons and
complaint for said complain. De Oliveira claims that the Defendants
violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), violated the New York Minimum Wage Act and
the overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law (NYLL),
violated the Spread of Hours Wage Order of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, violated the Notice and Recordkeeping
requirements and the wage statement provisions of the NYLL,
recovery of equipment costs in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and
unlawful deductions from tips in violation of the NYLL.
The company has submitted an answer to De Oliveira's claims and the
case is currently in the discovery phase. The company, along with
the co-defendants, intends to vigorously defend itself against the
claims asserted against it in this lawsuit. The likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome is remote because the company's records show
that De Oliveira never worked more than 25 hours per week.
The case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge. There was a conference
on March 2, 2021 and all discovery was due by May 27, 2021.
Scores Holding Company, Inc. provides amusement and recreation
services based in New York.
SCORES HOLDING: Munoz Labor Suit Discontinued
---------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2022,
that the class action complaint filed by Dislenia Munoz has been
amended and then discontinued without prejudice as of June 22,
2018.
On July 25, 2017, Dislenia Munoz, who formerly performed as an
adult entertainer at Scores New York, owned in its entirety by I.M.
Operating LLC, commenced a putative class action lawsuit against
the company, IMO, Robert Gans and Mark Yackow in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York.
Munoz alleged she and other similarly situated entertainers at
Scores New York were misclassified as independent contractors, that
they should have been classified as employees, and as a result, the
Defendants violated, among other things, applicable state wage and
hour laws. The Lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
On June 22, 2018, Munoz amended her complaint in the lawsuit to
excise her class allegations and discontinued it without
prejudice.
Plaintiff has brought her claims in said lawsuit in another forum
against the Defendants, other than the company, which is no longer
a subject of her claims.
Scores Holding Company, Inc. provides amusement and recreation
services based in New York.
SHREDHA & SABURI: Benson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Housekeepers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE D. BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHREDHA & SABURI INC., a/k/a TRAVELODGE BY
WYNDHAM, and KEYURI G. PATEL, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00010-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., January 12, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly
situated hotel workers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a housekeeper and
janitor employee at Travelodge by Wyndham located in Alachua,
Florida from May 01, 2021 until September 22, 2021.
Shredha & Saburi Inc. is an operator of a hotel under the name
Travelodge by Wyndham located in Alachua, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SOURCE ONE: Coronado Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO CORONADO, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOURCE ONE STAFFING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2022LA000022 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, DuPage
Cty., January 7, 2022) alleges that Defendant illegally collects
and stores Plaintiff and other employees' fingerprints and requires
to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a
fingerprint-scanning machine in violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not obtain
Plaintiff's or class members' written consent to record, collect,
obtain, and/or store Plaintiff's and class members' biometric data.
Likewise, Defendant never provided Plaintiff with the requisite
statutory disclosures nor an opportunity to prohibit or prevent the
collection, storage or use of Plaintiff's unique biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information.
Additionally, the Defendant did not disclose to Plaintiff, class
members, or the public its written retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying employee biometric data, says
the suit.
Source One Staffing provides recruitment services. The Company
offers temporary, full-time, and project staffing solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
Chicago, IL 60605
Telephone: (773) 831-8000
E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
whb@beaumontcostales.com
SUPPORT SERVICES: Underpays CSRs and SMEs, Gates Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAKEYTHIA GATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC. (A/K/A LEGACY
SUPPORT SERVICES, LTD AND/OR LEGACY SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC),
Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00045-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., January 12,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act
by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customer service representatives (CSRs) and subject matter experts
(SMEs) overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a CSR and SME in
McLennan County, Texas from January 29, 2018 through December 11,
2021.
Support Services Group, Inc. is a call center operator, with a
principal place of business at 300 South 13th Street, Waco, Texas.
[BN]
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
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: West Va. Supreme Ct. Hears Arguments in Fire Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for WV News, reports that the West Virginia
Supreme Court on Jan. 12 heard arguments on whether a circuit judge
correctly followed its instructions regarding the certification of
a class action lawsuit.
The justices in November 2020 shot down Special Judge Thomas A.
Bedell's certification of the class against warehouse owner Surnaik
Holdings of WV LLC and sent the case back to him on a remand. By
mid-June, Bedell had held additional proceedings and certified the
class action again.
The potential class action involves the October 2017 fire at
Surnaik's Parkersburg warehouse that burned for eight days and
shrouded much of the area in dark black smoke. If certified, the
class would involve individuals from Parkersburg, Vienna,
Blennerhasset, Lubeck, Washington and Waverly, as well as from
Belpre, Ohio.
The class action certification process is required to determine
whether a class action lawsuit is really in the interests of
judicial economy. This can be a pivotal decision, since trying
cases on an individual basis wouldn't be palatable for most law
firms due to the small return vs. work required. But opponents of
class actions are quick to assert that in these actions, individual
plaintiffs usually just receive a small return while lawyers reap a
major one. Class action lawyers come back with the contention that
this is the best way to hold large corporations with deep pockets
accountable.
The attorneys for Surnaik Holdings on July 30 filed a petition for
writ of prohibition with the state Supreme Court, asking the
justices to nix the class action ruling for a second time. That's
the matter that was before the high court on Jan. 12.
Surnaik lawyer Ryan Donovan, of Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC
in Charleston, on Jan. 12 told the justices that Bedell -- Harrison
County's chief judge -- had failed to meet the standards set out by
the justices.
"About a year and a half ago . . . I stood in this courtroom and we
presented our arguments on virtually the identical issues that
we're here to discuss again today," Donovan said. "After that
argument a few months later, the court issued an opinion that did
two things: No. 1, concluded that the trial court's analysis had
been had not been appropriate and thorough as the rule requires;
and [No.] 2, importantly, identified specific deficiencies for the
trial court and the plaintiff to address on remand, urging harmony
with federal class action jurisprudence," Donovan said.
"Unfortunately, on remand the plaintiffs and the trial court didn't
take advantage of the opportunity and the guidance that this court
provided. Plaintiffs took no remedial measures. They could have
asked for some new discovery, new expert depositions to help
clarify the technical and scientific issues in this case, about
whether the members actually suffered an injury. Didn't do that,"
Donovan said. "More simply, they might have amended the class
definition, reduced the number of class members . . . done
something, again, to try to address the issues this court raised
the first time. They didn't do that. They didn't even file a new
motion for a class certification. They didn't even ask for a new
hearing on class certification. All that happened was that the
plaintiff submitted a new proposed order, a short summary of what
was in it, and the trial court signed it word for word and here we
are today. Simply asking the court to enforce its prior opinion . .
.," Donovan said.
Alex McLaughlin, of Calwell Luce diTrapano PLCC, also of
Charleston, countered that Bedell did follow the dictates of the
justices' prior decision. Asked by Justice Evan Jenkins and Chief
Justice John Hutchison whether Bedell had held a hearing before
ruling a second time, McLaughlin said the judge had done so. Each
side decided against any new presentation of evidence, McLaughlin
said.
"We understood the thrust of this Court's prior decision in Surniak
to be [that] this analysis wasn't good enough. The analysis that
the court did on predominance and superiority, point blank, just
wasn't good enough. Never talked about the elements of any of the
causes of action or even really mentioned what those causes of
action were," McLaughlin said.
"And so the focus on going back there was to talk about, was to
elucidate what are the causes of action? We dismissed a claim for
trespass because we'd never argued it since alleging it in our
complaint. . . . We have nuisance and negligence, and as the
court's order goes through fairly thoroughly, nuisance and
negligence are essentially the same when you're talking about an
incident like this," McLaughlin said.
"The same with respect to liability, with duty and breach of duty;
they're both negligence. This is not an unintentional or an ongoing
tort. It's not a business that's releasing the smoke as part of its
business. It's an accidental unintended release, and the question
is whether that release was negligent. So the duty and breach of
duty for both nuisance and negligence are the same," McLaughlin
said. "The court discussed those thoroughly, discussed the elements
of proof or the evidence that would be required to prove duty and
breach of duty for both nuisance and negligence, although it's the
same, and concluded that those are common issues. Those are common
issues for personal injuries, they're common issues for property
damage in the form of cleanup and ash removal, and they're common
issues for plaintiffs alleging -- like all the claimants, the
unifying injury -- smoke invaded my property and caused
interference with the use and enjoyment of my property."
Donovan told the justices there would still need to be 57,000
"mini-trials" on causation and damages in the event of class
certification on liability. That figure alone should nix the class
certification through failure to meet what's called the
predominance requirement, he said.
McLaughlin agreed there would be thousands and perhaps even tens of
thousands of such proceedings required. But they would last only a
couple of hours, which would provided judicial "bang for the buck"
vs. holding a days- or weeks-long trial in each case, he said.
The lawyers also are at odds on whether a significant amount of the
population, or just a tiny fraction, suffered a measurable enough
impact from the fire fallout. [GN]
TAKATA CORP: Carmax Remains Class Member for Ford Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that the company was a
class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit
regarding the issues with the Takata Airbag in a product liability
litigation filed in the Southern District of Florida. Said suit was
filed against Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda, Nissan and Ford
related to the economic loss associated with defective Takata
airbags installed as original equipment in certain model vehicles
from model years 2000-2018.
On April 15, 2020, CarMax received $40.3 million in net recoveries
from the Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda and Nissan settlement
funds. CarMax remains a class member for the Ford settlement fund.
Carmax, Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia.
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Modrak Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MODRAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TALIS BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION, BRIAN COE, J.
ROGER MOODY, JR., FELIX BAKER, RAYMOND CHEONG, MELISSA GILLIAM,
RUSTEM F. ISMAGILOV, KIMBERLY J. POPOVITS, MATTHEW L. POSARD,
RANDAL SCOTT, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC.,
PIPER SANDLER & CO., and BTIG, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00105 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2022) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Talis common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's February 2021 initial public offering, pursuing
claims under the Securities Act of 1933.
Talis purportedly develops diagnostic tests to enable accurate,
reliable, low cost, and rapid molecular testing for infectious
diseases and other conditions at the point-of-care. The Talis One
tests are being developed for respiratory infections, infections
related to women's health, and sexually transmitted infections.
On February 12, 2021, the Company filed its prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement.
According to the complaint, the Registration Statement was false
and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient
sensitivity to support Talis's EUA application for Talis One
COVID-19 test; (2) that, as a result, Talis was reasonably likely
to experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for the Talis
One COVID-19 test; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
commercialization timeline would be significantly delayed; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
TD ASSET: Siskinds LLP Reminds Investors of April 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has certified a class
action which permits a defined group of investors (the "Class") to
pursue claims against TD Asset Management Inc. ("TDAM"). It is
alleged that TDAM paid excessive, inflated, and/or unearned
trailing commissions to Discount Brokers out of the assets of the
TD Mutual Fund trusts. The class action claims monetary damages on
behalf of the Class. The allegations made in the class action have
not been proven and are contested by TDAM.
If you wish to participate in the class action, DO NOTHING.
If you do not wish to participate in the class action, be bound by
or receive any benefits from it, you must opt out by sending the
opt-out form to RicePoint Administration Inc. by April 8, 2022.
To obtain a copy of the opt-out form or for other important
information regarding the class action:
Visit
https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/mutual-fund-trailing-commissions/
Call toll-free 1-800-461-6166 ext 4399 (North America)
Call 416-594-4399 (Outside North America)
The publication of this notice was authorized by the Superior Court
of Justice of the Province of Ontario [GN]
UKG INC: Fraga Slams Data Breach
--------------------------------
Abiezer Fraga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UKG Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-20105,
(S.D. Fla., January 7, 2022), is a class action for breach of
contract against UKG for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information that it acquired from
thousands of its customers about their employees.
UKG acquired the employees' information in the course of providing
its workforce management solution to its customers. The employee
information at issue includes, without limitation, names, mailing
addresses, email addresses, and/or Social Security numbers.
UKG's customers store their workforce data in the "Kronos Private
Cloud," which hosts "Workforce Central" which allows its customers
to manage schedules, track time and attendance, administer absence
and leaves, and measure productivity. On or around December 11,
2021, UKG determined an unauthorized access to the Kronos Private
Cloud as part of a ransomware attack. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
JOHN A. YANCHUNIS, Esq.
RYAN D. MAXEY, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel: (813) 223-5505
Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
UNITED STATES: Kapilina Beach Homes Residents File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHON2 reports that Kapilina Beach Homes residents affected by the
Navy's ongoing contamination crisis filed a class action complaint,
on Jan. 6, demanding a jury trial to stop their landlords from
charging rent and utilities.
The plaintiffs are Xavier Bonilla Lozano, Taeler Owens and Chelsea
Campbell.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton of Bickerton
Law Group said, "people are trapped in these poisoned homes. They
want or need to move out but can't afford to pay the first and last
month's rent for a new place while the Kapilina landlord is
charging them rent."
The order also asked the court to block the landlord from charging
the residents an "exit fee" of two months' rent and requiring them
to release their injury claims if they decide to terminate their
leases.
Kapilina Beach Homes management released their statement on the
order on Wednesday, Jan. 12.
Plaintiff Xavier Lozano, a resident at Kapililani said, "It's
really hard to stay in a house where the water that came out of the
faucet sent my son to the emergency room. But we have no other
choice right now."
Kapilina added that as the Navy deals with the water supply,
Kapilina will continue to waive all water charges. They also assist
residents with the delivery of large water bottles, credits for
offsite laundry and access to shower facilities.
"We have also been tirelessly advocating for the Navy to extend its
support to cover Kapilina Beach Home's civilian residents, and we
are very pleased that the Navy has confirmed this is occurring,"
stated Kapilina Beach Homes' management. "They have also confirmed
they are developing a flushing plan for our community." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Reduction of Benefits in Michener v. SSA Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled FRANCES MICHENER, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security; SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-16834
(9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the reduction of the Plaintiff-Appellant's Social
Security benefits.
The Windfall Elimination Program ("WEP") reduces the Social
Security benefits of individuals, who receive a pension for work
not covered by the Social Security system. The question for
decision is whether the WEP applies to a Social Security
beneficiary, who receives benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
The Social Security Administration ("SSA") concluded that it does,
and the district court upheld the agency determination.
I.
Frances Michener is a citizen of both the United States and Canada,
as was her late husband, Dr. Steven Rosell. From 1976 to 1990, they
lived in Canada where Rosell worked and participated in the Canada
Pension Plan. During that period, Rosell did not contribute to the
Social Security system. In 1990, Rosell and Michener moved to the
United States where Rosell paid Social Security taxes on his
earnings until becoming disabled in 2012. Rosell then began
receiving Social Security disability benefits, in addition to
benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, and Michener later began
receiving Social Security spousal benefits.
In June 2015, SSA notified Rosell and Michener that their benefits
would be reduced under the WEP because Rosell received a pension
based on work not covered by Social Security taxes, and sought the
return of $7,194.00 for past overpayment of benefits. Rosell and
Michener sought reconsideration by SSA, and review by an
Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council, each of whom held
that the couple's Social Security benefits were subject to
reduction under the WEP.
Mr. Rosell and Ms. Michener then filed the putative class action in
federal court; after Rosell's death in December 2018, Michener
became the lead plaintiff. The complaint alleged that reducing the
Social Security benefits of class members based on the receipt of a
foreign social security pension violated the WEP, its implementing
regulation, and the Agreement Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of Canada with Respect to
Social Security (the "U.S.-Canada Agreement"), Can.-U.S., Mar. 11,
1981, 35 U.S.T. 3405. The district court granted summary judgment
to the agency and denied a motion for class certification as moot,
Michener v. Berryhill, No. 19-cv-04377-SVK, 2020 WL 4810693, at *8
(N.D. Cal. July 24, 2020). The timely appeal followed.
II.
Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, writing for the Panel, notes that
the Panel reviewed the district court's judgment de novo, Larson v.
Saul, 967 F.3d 914, 922 (9th Cir. 2020). The Social Security Act
"provides old-age, survivor, and disability benefits to insured
individuals irrespective of financial need," Bowen v. Galbreath,
485 U.S. 74, 75 (1988) (citing 42 U.S.C. Sections 403, 423)).
Individuals with 40 quarters of coverage are entitled to retirement
and disability benefits. The system is progressive, so participants
with lower career earnings receive a greater percentage of their
earnings in Social Security benefits than those with higher career
earnings.
An agreement "entered into under section 433" is a "totalization
arrangement" between the Social Security system and the
corresponding system of a foreign country, Judge Hurwitz notes,
citing 42 U.S.C. Section 433(a). The purpose of a totalization
arrangement is to establish how periods of coverage accrued under
two countries' systems are treated by each to establish eligibility
for benefits. The United States and Canada have a section 433
agreement.
III.
The dispositive issue in the case is whether the U.S.-Canada
Agreement designates Rosell's Canadian service as employment under
the Social Security Act. If so, Rosell's Canadian pension would be
based on earnings for service that did constitute employment, and
the WEP would not apply.
The WEP provides that service which is not employment is "hereafter
in this paragraph and in subsection (d)(3) referred to as
'noncovered service,'" 42 U.S.C. Section 415(a)(7)(A)(ii).
Judge Hurwitz holds that the district court correctly held that the
statute, thus, "equates 'service which did not constitute
"employment" as defined in section 410' with 'noncovered service'
on which no Social Security taxes were paid." However, he says, the
statute also provides that the WEP does not apply to pensions
received because of service "designated as employment or recognized
as equivalent to employment" in a section 433 agreement. Thus, the
statute allows service in other countries, which ordinarily would
not be covered by the Social Security system, to be designated as
"employment"--and thereby excluded from the WEP--through a section
433 agreement between the United States and another country.
Michener argues that the U.S.-Canada Agreement does so for Rosell's
work in Canada.
Ms. Michener's argument rests on a general provision of the
Agreement, which provides that any term not defined in this Article
has the meaning assigned to it in the applicable laws. The
Agreement later defines "applicable laws" as U.S. Social Security
laws (Title II of the Social Security Act and related regulations,
and Chapters 2 and 21 of the Internal Revenue Code and related
regulations), Canada's social security laws (the Old Age Security
Act and related regulations), and the Canada Pension Plan (and its
regulations). She contends that because "employment" is not defined
in the Agreement, the term includes "employment" as defined in
Canadian law, and therefore Rosell's Canadian service is
"employment" excluded from the WEP.
The Court of Appeals disagrees. Judge Hurwitz explains that
Michener misconstrues both the function of section 433 agreements
and the U.S.-Canada Agreement itself. The relevant provision of the
Social Security Act defines "employment" as service that "is
designated as employment or recognized as equivalent to employment"
by a section 433 agreement. Nothing in the U.S.-Canada Agreement
designates Rosell's Canadian service as employment for purposes of
the Social Security Act or recognizes it as the equivalent of U.S.
employment. Rather, the definitional section on which Michener
relies simply acknowledges that each country has defined employment
in its own laws. It does not follow that any work in Canada subject
to Canadian laws, such as Rosell's Canadian service, is "designated
as employment" by the U.S.-Canada Agreement. Indeed, when the
drafters of the Agreement wanted to make work performed in Canada
"subject to" the Social Security Act, they did so explicitly.
Judge Hurwitz also finds that Michener's reading of the Agreement
would entitle a recipient to receive credit for service under both
the U.S. and Canadian social security systems for the same period
of service. But this is expressly prohibited under the Social
Security Act. Likewise, if any service considered "employment" in
Canada was also "employment" for purposes of U.S. Social Security,
that service would be subject to Social Security taxes. Rosell's
service was not.
Judge Hurwitz holds that Michener's reading is not supported by the
text of the regulation, which says that a pension is from
noncovered employment, and therefore subject to the WEP, if it
bases benefits on earnings--not if pension eligibility or
entitlement is based "solely" on earnings. Moreover, the statute
itself expressly provides that the WEP applies to a pension, which
is based in whole or in part upon an individual's earnings for
service which did not constitute "employment" as defined in section
410 of this title for purposes of this subchapter.
IV.
Judge Hurwitz concludes that the SSA and the district court
properly interpreted the WEP and the U.S.-Canada Agreement. Because
Rosell's Canadian pension was based at least in part on his
earnings for noncovered service, the agency correctly reduced the
couple's Social Security benefits.
Affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 30, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p86d4uk from Leagle.com.
Thomas F. Allen, Jr. -- tfallen@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC,
in Dallas, Texas; Aaron M. Bernay -- abernay@fbtlaw.com -- Frost
Brown Todd LLC, in Cincinnati, Ohio; William F. Murphy --
wfm@dillinghammurphy.com -- Dillingham & Murphy, LLP, in San
Francisco, California; Jonathan M. Bruce, Law Office of Jonathan
Bruce, LLC, in Olathe, Kansas, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Sushma Soni (argued) and Sharon Swingle, Appellate Staff; Stephanie
Hinds, Acting United States Attorney; Brian M. Boynton, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Royce Min --
royce.min@ssa.gov -- General Counsel; Stacey W. Harris, Attorney;
Office of Program Law, Office of the General Counsel, Social
Security Administration, in Washington, D.C., for the
Defendants-Appellees.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Approves $10MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Moran, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved a
$10 million final settlement for a class-action lawsuit targeting
UnitedHealthcare and its tiered reimbursement policy.
The lawsuit, filed in 2017, claims that UnitedHealthcare's policy
reduced payments for out-of-network mental healthcare providers --
including psychologists, counselors and social workers -— by
between 25 percent and 35 percent, according to a news release
shared with Becker's from Zuckerman Spaeder, the firm representing
the class.
The policy allegedly affected more than 110,000 patients.
The court approved a $10 million payout to affected members, which
covers between 55 percent and 70 percent of the financial impact of
the underpayments, according to the news release.
"For years, United used a tiered reimbursement policy that unfairly
reduced benefits when patients obtained psychotherapy from
out-of-network behavioral health providers," said Andrew Goldfarb,
a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder. "United has not only eliminated
this policy, but as a result of our lawsuit and this settlement, it
will now pay $10 million to make up for these underpayments."
UnitedHealthcare had not responded to Becker's request for comment
at the time of publication. [GN]
VOLVO GROUP: Among Defendants in $175-Bil. Price Fixing Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that U.K.-based law firm Weightmans LLP
is looking to launch a class-action lawsuit against five European
truck makers, including AB Volvo and Daimler AG, seeking up to
GBP13 billion ($17.5 billion) in damages for alleged truck
price-fixing, Proactive Investors reported citing Telegraph. Iveco
SpA, MAN SE and DAF Trucks NV are also among the five truck makers
accused of fixing prices for 14 years, starting from 1997. [GN]
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE: Discovery Underway in Merger Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022,
that expert discovery is ongoing in the putative class action
lawsuit filed by purported Rite Aid shareholders.
On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania arising out
of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the
company and Rite Aid.
The amended complaint alleged that Walgreens and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions. The Court denied the Walgreens's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on April 15, 2019. Walgreens filed an answer
and affirmative defenses, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. Fact discovery has concluded and expert
discovery is ongoing.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
ordered a joint stipulation for the putative class action lawsuit
in December 28, 2021.
In October and December 2020, two separate purported Rite Aid
Shareholders filed lawsuits in the same court, opting out of the
class in said action making nearly identical allegations as those
in said suits. On December 24, 2020, the parties to the Direct
Actions filed a joint stipulation to stay the Direct Actions until
the earlier of (a) 30 days after the entry of an order resolving
any pre-trial dispositive motions in the M.D. Pa. action, or (b) 30
days after the entry of an order of final approval of any
settlement of the M.D. Pa. action.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a retailer of drug stores and
propriety stores based in Illinois.
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE: Washtenaw Retirement Sys. Suit Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022,
that in the case docketed as "Washtenaw County Employees'
Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et al." Case No. 1:15-cv-3187
(N.D. Ill., April 10, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois has denied plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part defendants'
cross motion. The ruling was entered November 2, 2021.
Said putative shareholder securities class action asserts claims
for violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain
public statements the company made regarding its former fiscal 2016
goals. A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint
filed on August 17, 2015 was granted in part and denied in part on
September 30, 2016.
The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on
March 29, 2018 and plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on
December 19, 2018. A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
was granted in part and denied in part on September 23, 2019 and
fact discovery and expert discovery have concluded.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a retailer of drug stores and
propriety stores based in Illinois.
WALMART: Women Delivery Drivers File Suit Over Sex Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Dean, writing for Business Insider, reports that the pants
that Walmart requires delivery drivers to wear don't fit women
properly, a female driver for the retail giant in Atlanta alleged
in a lawsuit filed on Jan. 11.
"This is blatant sex discrimination by Walmart against its female
drivers," the class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of all female
drivers affected by the lack of appropriate pants, says.
Diana Webb, who's driven for Walmart since July 2020, alleged in
the lawsuit that she'd had to purchase her own trousers because the
ones provided by the company weren't comfortable and didn't fit
properly.
Drivers are required to wear a uniform consisting of pants and a
shirt while at work, and are subject to "immediate termination" if
they don't, according to the lawsuit, though Walmart denies this
allegation.
Walmart provides the uniform to drivers - but "only provides men's
pants for both male and female drivers," the lawsuit alleged.
These pants are "uncomfortable and poorly-fitting for the female
drivers," the lawsuit says. "For female drivers, it is impossible
to wear the men's pants provided by Walmart specifically made to
fit only male employees due to anatomical differences between the
sexes."
Female drivers are able to buy their own pants but must foot the
bill themselves, the lawsuit said. It also claimed that Walmart
laundered and dry cleaned drivers' company-issued pants but if
staff chose to buy their own then Walmart doesn't provide these
services, according to the lawsuit.
"Female drivers are therefore required to either suffer discomfort,
or purchase and launder their own pants, out of their own pocket,
with no option for reimbursement," it alleged.
Webb said that she complained to her supervisors and HR multiple
times before filing the lawsuit, but they didn't take action.
Supervisors had also denied Webb's request for reimbursement for
the multiple pairs of pants and shorts that she'd bought to wear
for work, per the lawsuit.
"Walmart is committed to providing our private fleet drivers with
various clothing options to meet our guidelines," Randy Hargrove, a
Walmart spokesperson, told Insider. "No associate, male or female,
is required to wear company provided pants."
"Months before the lawsuit was filed, Ms. Webb was fitted for
company provided pants which she now has," Hargrove continued. "We
continue to review our clothing offerings for male and female
drivers. We take these allegations seriously and will respond in
court as appropriate."
"I just felt it wasn't right," Webb told AL.com. "I do the same job
as any other driver out there. So does every other woman."
"This is classic example of nationwide discrimination, or treatment
of females differently from males in the workplace simply because
they have chosen a traditionally male profession," Teri Mastando,
one of Webb's attorneys in the case, told Insider. "Ms. Webb
repeatedly tried to correct this problem internally but with no
success and felt this lawsuit was the only option for correcting
the discrimination."
Eric Atrip, another attorney for Webb, told AL.com that Walmart
should reimburse her for the pants.
"It's not a lot of money, but if you're making the women pay it and
not making the men pay it, that's not fair," he said. The law
requires Walmart to "treat the men and the women the same and
that's all we're asking for," he added. [GN]
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN: $1MM Cy Pres Payout Ordered in Good Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston,
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on the Parties' application
and joint motions relating to the distribution of settlement funds,
including disbursement of $1,051,425 to cy pres recipients in the
lawsuit titled CRYSTAL GOOD, individually and as parent and next
friend of minor children M.T.S., N.T.K., and A.M.S., and MELISSA
JOHNSON, individually and as a parent of an unborn child T.A.J.,
and JOAN GREEN and SUMMER JOHNSON and MARY LACY and WENDY RENEE
RUIZ and KIMBERLY OGIER and ROY J. McNEAL and GEORGIA HAMRA and
MADDIE FIELDS and BRENDA BAISEDN, d/b/a FRIENDLY FACES DAYCARE, and
ALADDIN RESTAURANT, INC. and R.G. GUNNOE FARMS LLC and DUNBAR
PLAZA, INC., d/b/a DUNBAR PLAZA HOTEL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN
WATER COMPANY, d/b/a WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN WATER, and AMERICAN
WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC. and AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY,
INC. and EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY and GARY SOUTHERN and DENNIS P.
FARRELL, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-1374 (S.D.W.Va.).
The matter is before the Court on the Parties' Application for
Approval to Pay Simple [Late] Claims, Individual Review Option
[Late] Claims, Cy Pres Distribution, and Settlement Administration
Costs and upon the Parties' Joint Motion for Cy Pres Distribution
of Remaining Guaranteed Fund Amounts, both filed Aug. 10, 2020, and
upon the Parties' Revised Joint Motion for Cy Pres Distribution of
Remaining Guaranteed Fund Amounts, filed Feb. 16, 2021, which
Revised Joint Motion seeks cy pres distributions only to specified
organizations whose aim and purpose include the protection and
restoration of watersheds in the nine counties impacted by the
Freedom Chemical spill.
The Parties are represented by Lead Settlement Class Counsel (Van
Bunch, Stuart Calwell, and Kevin W. Thompson), Settlement Class
Counsel (Anthony J. Majestro, Benjamin L. Bailey, and Marvin W.
Masters), counsel for West Virginia-American Water Company (Kent
Mayo and Thomas J. Hurney, Jr.), and counsel for Eastman Chemical
Company (Deborah Greenspan), along with the respective law firms of
the named counsel.
In their Application the Parties request the Court to order payment
of approved late filed claims, which now aggregate $389,718.37, as
set out here, out of the sum of $186,473.47 that remains in
undisbursed Guaranteed Funds and then from uncashed checks issued
to various claimants amounting to $1,273,572.39. The Parties
request in both the Application and the Joint Motions that the
Court order payment of the remaining funds on a cy pres basis that
is primarily the subject of the Joint Motions.
The "Guaranteed Settlement Fund" refers to the sum of $76 million,
which sum will be used to pay certain claims, fees and expenses as
set forth in Section 5.4.2 of this Amended Agreement and in the
Settlement Fund Distribution Protocols. The $76 million is
exclusive of attorney fees and costs of litigation which are
provided for out of other funds. The "Contingent Settlement Fund"
refers to the sum of up to $50 million, which may be used to pay
certain claims, fees and expenses as specified at Section 5.4.3 of
the Amended Agreement and in the Settlement Fund Distribution
Protocols.
The Court has received a report from the Court-appointed Settlement
Administrator, SmithCochranHicks PLLC ("SCH"), which report is
attached to the parties' Application and is titled "Distribution
Schedule," listing the total number of approved late filed claims
as of Aug. 10, 2020, after completing a review of deficient late
filed claims. SCH calculated the approved late filed claims as
consisting of (i) 30 Individual Review claims, amounting to
$12,827.48, (ii) 1,265 Simple Claims, consisting of 438 Residential
Simple and 827 Residential Simple -- AR (Additional Resident),
amounting to $342,097.85, and (iii) 20 Business Simple claims,
amounting to $34,793.04, aggregating $389,718.37.
The Application, Joint Motions, and the Distribution Schedule
prompt two questions:
(1) whether the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement
("ASA") approved by the Court's Order Granting Final
Approval of the Good Class Settlement and Entering
Judgment, permits payment of late filed claims; and
(2) how the remaining uncashed settlement checks should be
disbursed.
To aid in resolution of the latter question, there was also
submitted a "Memorandum Regarding Disbursement of Unspent Funds
Remaining in Simple Claim Fund" on April 28, 2020, focusing on the
escheat issue.
I. Late Filed Claims Under the ASA
SCH has already attempted to locate claimants, who did not cash
their settlement checks. In the event the Guaranteed Fund is not
exhausted by eligible claims and expenses, Section XI.E.2 of the
Distribution Protocols indicates that the Guaranteed Payment
Remainder Funds should be used to pay approved Individual Review
Claims.
The only remaining individual review claims unpaid are the 30 late
filed claims amounting to $12,827.48.
Inasmuch as the ASA, the Distribution Protocols and the Judgment
Order do not bar the payment of late filed claims, as the Court may
equitably direct, the Court finds that the distribution of
remaining assets to late filed claimants, which is agreed to by all
Parties, is in accordance with the provisions of the ASA and
Distribution Protocols.
The Court, accordingly, ordered that the late filed claims of
$389,718.37, together with the Settlement Administrator's fees of
$18,902.50, aggregating $408,620.87, be paid, first from the
remaining undisbursed Guaranteed Settlement Funds of $186,473.47
and then from the remaining funds left over from uncashed checks.
II. Disbursement of Remaining Uncashed Checks
After providing for disbursements to late filed claims, the Court
must decide how to allocate the remaining balance of unclaimed
funds, being $1,051,425.99, or about 1% of the total amount of the
original Guaranteed Fund.
As the provisions in the Distribution Protocols show, the
settlement agreement contemplates the distribution of uncashed
checks, Judge Copenhaver notes. After paying out approved
Individual Review Option claims, the settlement agreement provides
that the remaining uncashed checks should be distributed pro rata
to all Residential Claimants, who made approved Simple Claim Form
claims.
If that were done, the remaining $1,051,425.99 would be applied to
187,879 Residential Simple and Residential Simple-Additional
Resident claimants (which excludes the 5,265 whose checks were not
cashed) after deducting the costs of the distribution, including
printing, mailing and postage, which is estimated by SCH to be $2
per distribution check for a total of $375,758. That would leave
for distribution $675,667.99. Applying the $675,667.99 on a pro
rata basis, the 77,701 Residential Simple claimants (each paid
$482.74) would each receive $5.94 and the 110,678 Residential
Simple-Additional Resident claimants (each paid $157.99) would each
receive $1.94. It is likely, as the Parties suggest, that a great
many of the checks, in sums that small, particularly after the
passage of over two years since the initial distribution, would
never be cashed.
In instances such as this, Judge Copenhaver states, the courts have
generally considered four options: (1) pro rata redistribution to
the class members who filed claims; (2) allowing the funds to
revert to the defendant; (3) escheat to the state or federal
government; and (4) cy pres distribution, citing 4 William B.
Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions Section 12:28 (5th ed. June
2020 Update), et al.
A. Reversion and Escheat
The Court will not choose on its own to have the funds revert to
the Defendants when neither the settlement agreement nor the
Defendants themselves seek such a disbursement. None of the
settlement provisions provide for escheat, and the Parties agree
that West Virginia law does not require escheat to the state.
Moreover, the Court's order approving the class settlement and
entering Judgment specifically deemed a claimant's failure to cash
the check as serving to void the check and allowing the claim to be
treated as waived.
The Court, thus, has no basis or reason to direct the funds under
either reversion or escheat.
B. Pro Rata Distribution
In recent years, many courts have followed the recommendations of
the 2010 report from the American Law Institute ("ALI"), which
express a preference for pro rata distribution to the plaintiffs,
citing In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d 1060, 1063,
1066 (8th Cir. 2015).
Although the settlement agreement contemplates a pro rata
distribution, this does not end the Court's analysis when the
economic feasibility of such a distribution is lacking. The Parties
seek an alternate method of allocating the funds.
C. Cy Pres
The Parties' joint memorandum proposes that the disbursement of the
unspent funds should fall under the cy pres doctrine.
Even though the ASA refers to pro rata distribution and has no
provision for a cy pres remedy, the Court need not distribute the
funds pro rata if it is not economically feasible to do so. On that
point, courts have found that a distribution may no longer prove
"economically viable" or "economically feasible" when the amount of
distribution would be de minimis.
The Court finds that the amount left in the Guaranteed Fund from
uncashed checks would provide only $5.94 for 77,701 of the
claimants and only $1.94 for the other 110,178. The Court deems
these sums de minimis and warrants consideration of the disposal of
the money pursuant to the cy pres doctrine.
D. Nexus Requirement -- "Reasonable Approximation" Test
Upon the Court's request, the Parties, by the Claims Oversight
Panel ("COP"), have identified several potential recipients of the
unspent funds.
While acknowledging the worthy and exceptional role of the
community support groups recommended by the Parties, the Court
recognized that it was constrained to limit cy pres distribution to
those organizations whose mission and interests reasonably
approximate those being pursued by the Class in this case.
Consequently, the Parties filed the Revised Joint Motion on Feb.
16, 2021, in which they recommended that the same six watershed
organizations each receive 10% of the cy pres distribution of
$1,051,424.99, with the remaining 40% to go to the West Virginia
Land Trust.
The Court adopts, for purposes only of watershed protection and
stream restoration work projects in the nine-county area, the list
of recipients and the percentage of participation of each as
recommended in the Revised Joint Motion, as follows:
* Buffalo Creek Watershed Improvement Association (10%);
* Coal River Group (10%);
* Davis Creek Watershed Association (10%);
* Fourpole Creek Watershed Improvement Association (10%);
* Morris Creek Watershed Association, Inc. (10%);
* Paint Creek Watershed Association (10%); and
* the West Virginia Land Trust (40%).
The Court finds that these organizations all have a connection to
the nature of the injury to the class members, encompass the
geographic scope of the class, and provide an indirect benefit to
the interests of the class. Given that these organizations meet the
criteria, the Court finds they are appropriate cy pres recipients.
Conclusion
Based on this, the Court finds that the disbursement of late filed
claims and a subsequent cy pres distribution with the remaining
simple claim funds are consistent with the terms of the ASA and
Distribution Protocols and a fair and reasonable resolution of the
unspent funds.
Judge Copenhaver further ordered that the Settlement Administrator
make payment of the late filed claims aggregating $389,718.37,
together with payment of the administrative fees in connection
therewith of $18,902.50. The checks will carry the notation on its
face as set forth in the court's order of June 8, 2018, and the
check will be deemed void within 90 days from the date of the
check.
The remainder of the Guaranteed Funds, being $1,051,425.99, will be
disbursed by the Settlement Administrator to the cy pres
recipients.
Any funds remaining as a result of uncashed checks from the late
filed claims distribution will, subject to any costs or expenses
that the Court approves, be paid to the cy pres distributees on the
same pro rata basis as established.
The Clerk is requested to transmit copies of the Order to all
counsel of record.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Dec. 30, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3y98sn7d from
Leagle.com.
WHITE HAWK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mondays Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
QUETIN MONDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE HAWK RETAIL SERVICES LLC d/b/a FALCON
RETAIL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00041-MHW-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, January 6, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, who worked for the
Defendant and were paid a straight hourly wage but no overtime,
seeking all available relief, including compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act and the
Indiana Minimum Wage Law.
Plaintiff Monday has worked exclusively for White Hawk as a
merchandiser, installer, and mover in Illinois, Indiana, and
Kentucky since approximately January 2021.
White Hawk is hired by companies throughout the United States to
redesign and remodel store interiors to increase store sales.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
WILDERNESS SPORTS: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto J. Rocha, writing for Law360, reports that a Georgia
resident filed a proposed class action suit against online sporting
goods retailer Wilderness Sports Warehouse LLC, alleging it didn't
take the necessary steps to protect its customers' information from
a data breach that has left them exposed to identity theft. [GN]
ZILLOW GROUP: Kuznicki Law Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Zillow Group, Inc. (NasdaqGS: BLIBLI, ZG),
if they purchased the Company's securities between August 7, 2020
and November 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders
have until January 18, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in
the securities class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-z/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/,
by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email
(dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
*********
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 2022. 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 ***