/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220207.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 7, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 21
Headlines
AGWAY ENERGY: Martinez Bid to Certify Class Partly Granted
ALBERTA: Sexual Abuse Victims Seek Class Action Certification
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Quash in Kronenberg Suit Moved to N.Y.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought in Sayles
AMERICAN INCOME: Betancourt Sues Over Illegal Fund Withdrawals
AMERICAN INT'L: General Pretrial Mng't Order Entered in Paguada
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Horry Cty., SC Votes to Settles Class Suit
AMICA MUTUAL: Gottlieb Appeals Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit
ANGRY SUPPLEMENTS: Case Mng't Plan, Sched Order Entered in Weekes
APPLE INC: AppleCare Class Settlement Hearing Set on April 27
ARS NATIONAL: Okten FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
BEKAERT CORP: Bid for Conditional Class Status Due May 6
BIAS & ASSOCIATES: Berry Seeks to Vacate Class Status Bid Deadline
BKP INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Status Bid Response
BLAND LANDSCAPING: Roldan Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen Seeks 7-Day Briefing Extension
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Dixon Suit
BROOKLYN WILD: Anderson Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
BUMBLE INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of March 25 Deadline
BUMBLE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 25 Deadline
BUMBLE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 25 Deadline
CACI INTERNATIONAL: April 11 Hearing on Pittmon Class Cert Bid Set
CAPTION CALL: Brady Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Nevada
CARRIER GLOBAL: Time to File Class Status Bid Extended
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Misled Investors to OK Tender Offer, Jones Claims
CD PROJEKT: Enters Negotiations to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit
CD PROJEKT: Finally Settles $1.85 Million Cyberpunk Class Action
CHEGG INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of February 22 Deadline
CLARIVATE PLC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 25 Deadline
CLEVELAND, OH: Doniver Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
CORIZON HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 1
CYIENT INC: Chapman Sues Over Illegal No Poach Agreement
DATTATRAY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graham Suit Alleges
DENVER HEALTH: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Nichols
DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Employee Retirement Plan
DJI TECHNOLOGY: Drones Fall Short on Product Specs, Kinder Says
DYE & DURHAM: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Fee Hikes
EAST FREEWAY TRUCK: Shaikh Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EASTLAND ASSOC: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
ECP-PF CT OPERATIONS: Oldacre Sues Over Delay in Pay
ELKHART PRODUCTS: Wins Bid for Partial Dismissal of Alverson Suit
ENCLARITY INC: Ct. Has Until Feb. 22 to Oppose Class Status Bid
ENSERV INC: Staff Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EOG RESOURCES: Joint Bid for Extension of Deadlines OK'd in Wake
ESTEE LAUDER: Law, et al., Seek to Certify Class
EVERGREEN ADULT: Denied Staff Overtime Pay, Meal Breaks, Says Kim
EXCELLUS BLUE: April 13 Class Settlement Approval Hearing Set
FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Ammons Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
FEDCAP REHABILITATION: King Wins Conditional Certification Bid
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 15 Deadline
FOUR SEASONS: Class Certification Hearing Set for Feb. 23
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Non GMO Claims
GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Grants Teva's Bid to Dismiss in Staley Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Stipulation Setting Class Certification Schedule Filed
GOTSPACE DATA: Spitalny v. Fiorillo Suit Remanded to State Court
GURNEY'S INN RESORT: Padilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HENKEL CORPORATION: Goldstein Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to D. Conn.
HERCULES, CA: Bid to Amend Complaint Granted in Vargas Class Suit
IL CANTINA: De Jesus Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers
ILLINOIS: Judge Considers Motion to Block Face Mask Mandates
ILLINOIS: Parents Express Fear, Concerns Over School Mask Mandates
INTEL CORP: Faces Meltdown & Spectre Suit Over Alleged CPU Flaws
IRONMAN PIZZA INC: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Sharp Says
JP MORGAN: Class Cert OK'd for Settlement w/ Morgan Stanley
JP MORGAN: Class Cert OK'd for Settlement with Westpac
JP MORGAN: Court Grants Class Cert. for Settlement with ANZ
JP MORGAN: Court Grants Class Cert. for Settlement with CBA
JP MORGAN: Dennis Wins Conditional Cert. for Settlement Purposes
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Sevier School Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarette, Tooele County Claims
JUUL LABS: Millard School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
JUUL LABS: Oregon School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Salt Lake Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign in Utah
KROGER CO: Joint Bid to Extend Class Certification Deadlines Filed
LEXI INDUSTRIES: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Denied Discovery in Electric Vehicle Breach Suit
MARATHON DIGITAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 15 Deadline
MATCH GROUP: Deadline for Discrimination Settlement Claims Set
MDL 2548: $28.2MM in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Gold Futures Suit
MDL 2548: Court Awards $8-Mil. for Expenses in Gold Futures Suit
MEDICAL WEIGHT: Hanyzkiewicz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Grants Hazdovac Leave to Amend Complaint
MICHAELS ORGANIZATION: Case Mng't, Sched Deadlines Modified in Lenz
MICHIGAN: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought
MICHIGAN: Several Unemployment Insurance Claimants File lawsuit
MISSOURI: Bid for Preliminary Injunction in Bledsoe v. MDOC Denied
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Monopolizes NFL Retail Market, Hibbs Suit Says
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Settlement in Kovich Gets Initial Nod
NAVISTAR INT'L: Settles Shy Class Suit Over Retirement Benefits
NETFLIX INC: Averts Class Action Suit Over Teen Suicides
NEW DIRECTIONS: $290K Class Settlement in Krott FLSA Suit Approved
NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION: Joseph Consumer Suit Goes to M.D. Florida
NRI LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 21 Deadline
NURSEIO LLC: Does not Properly Pay Travel Nurses, Lockett Says
ONTARIO: Suit Launched on Behalf of Psychiatric Hospital Patients
OREGON: Reyes Action Stayed Pending Resolution in Maney Suit
OSF HEALTHCARE: Moretz Files ADA Suit in C.D. Illinois
OUTDOORSY INC: Resnick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PAPA MURPHY'S: Monteverde & Associates Discloses Class Action
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Mateer Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Sued for Using Names, Personas without Consent
PEPSICO INC: Muller Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PERDOMO BUILDERS: Perez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Reimbursements
PILOT AIR: Matute Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
PIZZA HUT: Sued Over Alleged Delivery Drivers' Misclassification
PRINTGLOBE INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Product Warranties
REALMANAGE LLC: Condo Owners File Suit Over "Unconscionable Fees"
RENUE SYSTEMS: Win Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Sierra Suit
RETAIL SERVICES: Asabre Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SACRAMENTO SELF-HELP: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAGINAW, MI: Must Face Class Action Over Illegal Parking Practices
SANGRIA 71: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Santos Says
SOUTHEAST RESTAURANTS: Bartel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
SPECTRA ENERGY: Settles Investors' Class Action for $7.5 Million
STANDARD LITHIUM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 28 Deadline
STANDARD LITHIUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 28 Deadline
STARTEK INC: Console & Associates Investigates Class Action
STARTEK INC: Kirtley Files Suit in D. Colorado
STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION: Figueroa Balks at Carpenters' Unpaid Wages
SUAVS LLC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNPOWER CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
SURGICAL SOCK: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
T-MOBILE USA: Philpot Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
T.O.P. MARKETING: Collazo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Avery Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TFORCE FREIGHT: Gonzalez Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
THC-ORANGE COUNTY: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRANSOM SYMPHONY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TSCHETTER SULZER: Warden Files FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado
VIDE BEVERAGES: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VISION SOLAR: Evidentiary Hearing in Smith Set for March 1
VON HOLZHAUSEN: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: To Settle Antitrust Suit on Illegal Pricing
WASHINGTON: Sather Files Suit in E.D. Washington
WOLFGANG'S VAULT: Reaches Agreement to Resolve Copyright Dispute
[*] Console & Associates Investigates Dark-Herring Scam Class Suit
[*] Pandemic to Generate More Workplace Class Lawsuits in 2022
[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Filings Down in 2021
[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements Up in 2021
*********
AGWAY ENERGY: Martinez Bid to Certify Class Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MARTINEZ, in his
capacity as executor of Naomi Gonzales' estate, v. AGWAY ENERGY
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00235-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as
follows:
-- The New York Sub-Class is divided into a New York Sub-
Class for Damages and a New York Sub-Class for Injunctive
Relief.
-- The Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's motion to
deny class certification is denied.
-- The Defendant's motion to deny class certification is
granted in part and denied in part.
-- The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted
in part and denied in part.
-- The Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's proposed
expert is granted.
-- The Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's Statement of
Additional Material Facts is denied.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
granted to the extent it sought class certification for a New York
Sub-Class, and the New York Sub-Class is divided into the New York
Sub-Class for Damages and a New York Sub-Class for Injunctive
Relief. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is otherwise
denied. The Defendant's motion to deny class certification is
accordingly granted in part and denied in part."
Ms. Naomi Gonzales commenced this putative class action against
Defendant Agway Energy, on December 6, 2017, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. She purported to bring
this action on her own behalf
and on behalf of (1) a class consisting of Defendant's New York and
Pennsylvania customer charged a variable rate for residential
electricity services from November 2011 to the present (the "New
York/Pennsylvania Class"); and (2) a sub-class of Defendant's New
York customers charged a variable rate for residential electricity
services from November 2011 to the present (the "New York
Sub-Class").
The Plaintiff asserted five claims against Defendant: (1)
violations of New York General Business Law ("GBL") section 349 on
behalf of the New York Sub-Class; (2) violations GBL section 349-d
on behalf of the New York Sub-Class; (3) breach of contract on
behalf of the New York/Pennsylvania Class; (4) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing on behalf of the New
York/Pennsylvania Class; and (5) unjust enrichment on behalf of the
New York/Pennsylvania Class.
On January 29, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and
the case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York by stipulation of the parties. On
October 22, 2018, this Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss
in part and denied it in part, dismissing Plaintiff's breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust
enrichment claims.
Agway is an oil and energy company based out of 240 Route 10,
Whippany, New Jersey.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GsoeLz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
Chantal Khalil, Esq.
Douglas G. Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, New York 10601
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan M. Sheehan, Esq.
Sharon M. Porcellio, Esq.
BOND SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
One Lincoln Center
Syracuse, NY 13202
- and -
John D. Coyle, Esq.
COYLE LAW GROUP LLP
55 Madison Avenue -- Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
ALBERTA: Sexual Abuse Victims Seek Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Parsons, writing for CBC News, reports that a group of men
who allege they were sexually abused by a chaplain while in an
Edmonton youth jail are seeking a court's permission to sue the
province and the Anglican Synod of the Diocese of Edmonton through
a class action lawsuit.
The 14 men say they were assaulted by Anglican priest Rev. Gordon
William Dominey when they were teen inmates at the Edmonton Youth
Development Centre in the 1980s.
Dominey was set to go to trial in January 2020 on 33 charges
related to alleged historical sexual offences against 13 former
inmates, but he died on Nov. 7, 2019, at age 67.
The civil claim now before the courts was launched by one of the
complainants in the criminal case. He has been seeking to have the
case proceed as a class-action suit since he first filed it in
2017.
His identity is protected by a court-ordered publication ban.
None of the allegations in either the criminal or civil case have
been proven in court.
On Jan. 24, Court of Queen's Bench Justice John Henderson heard
arguments from the plaintiff's lawyer, Avnish Nanda, about why the
men should be able to sue as a group, rather than attempting to
seek compensation in 14 individual lawsuits.
During the hearing held over video conference, Nanda argued that
the diocese and the province put Dominey in a position of authority
over the youth, and then failed to adequately supervise the priest
or enforce policies and practices to protect the youths.
"The institutional members created or permitted an environment that
allowed Dominey to abuse them with impunity," Nanda said.
The Government of Alberta and the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton are
opposed to the certification being granted.
The parties argued that the varied nature of the alleged assaults
would make it difficult for a judge to weigh overall liability, and
that each class member would have to give evidence no matter what.
The complainants who testified during the preliminary hearing
alleged being assaulted by Dominey in different places in the jail
such as the swimming pool, a private office and a shower.
"Nobody wants to be duplicating this and doing it 14 times, but at
the end of the day a class action is not the right structure,"
argued Luciana Brasil, the province's lawyer.
She challenged the argument that there was systemic negligence or
abuse by the province.
"In this case, the allegation is only, only that Mr. Dominey
assaulted the youth at the Edmonton centre," Brasil said. "There is
no allegation that staff or another student committed anything to
anyone else."
Lawyers for Alberta also argued that the case doesn't meet the
criteria for certification in two ways, arguing:
Alberta doesn't have a fiduciary duty, a commitment to act in the
best interest, of inmates even if they are children.
The Occupiers' Liability Act does not apply because two of the men
alleged Dominey took them on outings and also assaulted them in his
car and home.
Court also heard arguments from Nanda and the defendants over
whether hearsay evidence from the preliminary hearing should be
admitted.
On Jan. 25, Nanda argued that having 14 separate trials would be
unwieldy and could result in access to justice issues if different
judges were to make different findings about the diocese and
province's liability.
He also argued that despite there being only one alleged offender
who is accused of varied types of assault, the institutional
failure to prevent that happening is a systemic issue.
Dominey's estate is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit,
though court heard it contains no assets.
After arguments wrapped up on Jan. 25, Henderson said it will take
a few weeks to make a determination on certification. [GN]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Quash in Kronenberg Suit Moved to N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ROBERT KRONENBERG, et al., Plaintiffs v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-mc-00587 (D. Utah), Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division,
directs the Clerk of Court to transfer InMoment, Inc.'s motion to
quash subpoena to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
The matter is before the Court on nonparty InMoment, Inc.'s Motion
to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, issued and served consistent with
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2). On Dec. 17, 2021,
non-party CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc. (CCC) filed a separate
Motion to Join Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.
The Plaintiffs in the action of Kronenberg v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06899-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y.) (Underlying Action) oppose
the Motion. InMoment replied. The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to
Join. CCC filed a reply. The parties have not requested transfer of
the Motion to the Eastern District of New York, and the Court has
neither sought input from the parties about transfer nor their
consent. For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Decision and
Order, the Motion to Join is also transferred, under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 45, to the Eastern District of New York for decision.
In general, the Plaintiffs assert in the Underlying Action that
Allstate makes conditional adjustments to undervalue and underpay
total loss vehicle claims using market studies produced by InMoment
and CCC. Currently, the Plaintiffs seek copies of communications,
documents, or Electronically Stored Information (ESI) from the
nonparties about (1) communications concerning the valuation of
total loss motor vehicles; and (2) documents and data concerning
the derivation, evaluation, verification, use, or potential use of
condition adjustments to value total loss motor vehicles by CCC.
InMoment and CCC claim the requested information is protected under
the work-project doctrine. The Plaintiffs disagree claiming the
information is not protected because the information prepared was
done so in the ordinary course of business or if protected, then
there is a "substantial need" for the materials and the nonparties
have waived the protection.
Legal Analysis
Rule 45 allows a court to transfer a subpoena-related motion to the
issuing court if the transferring court finds exceptional
circumstances (Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f)). Rule 45 does not define
"exceptional circumstance" leaving courts to look to the 2013
Committee Note and case law for guidance.
Judge Pead finds that the risk of "burdening" the nonparties
(InMoment and CCC) is low, in this situation. The Plaintiffs seek
copies of communications, documents, or ESI, all or most of which
can be easily transmitted electronically. InMoment and CCC are
large companies with a national, or even global, presence. These
entities have retained well-known law firms, like Latham & Watkins,
LLP, that regularly litigate lawsuits in many courts across the
nation and assist in discovery production in many actions even
though its clients may be located in one state and required to
produce documents to an entity in another state.
In any event, if any burden does exist imposed by transferring the
motions, it likely is outweighed by the interest in obtaining an
efficient and uniform resolution with respect to application of the
work-product doctrine as it applies to the requested materials,
Judge Pead opines. Also, improperly withholding the requested
material (communications about the total loss vehicle valuation)
could impact the merits of the underlying action pending in the
Eastern District of New York.
With the risk of burdening the nonparties being low or
non-existent, the Court will turn its attention to the status of
the pending litigation in the Underlying Action. The Underlying
Action was filed in December 2018 and has been pending for three
years. It is a complex matter claiming Allstate intentionally
undervalued total loss vehicles to underplay insureds' claims. The
Eastern District of New York court has already denied a motion to
dismiss and a motion to strike class allegations. The issue of
class certification remains undecided.
The New York court also has issued approximately 3 Scheduling
Orders and entered approximately 10 discovery-related orders
(excluding Scheduling Orders) that include a protective order
between the Plaintiffs and CCC. Moreover, CCC and the Plaintiffs
have engaged in extensive negotiations about production of
documents in that case even though CCC is not a party to that
action.
The parties were also ordered to participate in discovery-related
mediation as it relates to Electronically Stored Information (ESI).
Even as recently as Dec. 1, 2021, the New York court was asked to
resolve a document request dispute that involved CCC. The New York
Court further ordered that fact discovery closes on Feb. 18, 2022.
Considering the Underlying Action may become a class action, it is
reasonable to have one court decide discovery-related disputes,
Judge Pead says. Even setting this aside, the New York court has
decided numerous discovery-related motions, including entering a
Protective Order between CCC and the Plaintiffs, which already
addresses transmission of ESI. This history places the New York
court in a better position to rule on the motions.
Simply put, Judge Pead holds, the New York court is in a better
position to rule on the motion due to its familiarity with the full
scope of the issues involved, as well as any implications the
resolution of the motion will have on the underlying litigation,
citing Wultz v. Bank of China, Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 38, 47 (D.D.C.
2014). With fact discovery slated to close next month in the
Underlying Action, the New York court is also better positioned to
rule on the motions to avoid unnecessary extensions of the
discovery scheduled.
Order
Based upon these reasons, it is ordered that the Clerk of Court
will transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. It is further ordered that counsel for the
Plaintiffs must file a copy of this Order in the Underlying Action
within five calendar days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Jan. 13, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/23vjzf9v from
Leagle.com.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought in Sayles
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA SAYLES,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01534-MEM-MCC (M.D.
Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
stipulation for class certification briefing schedule as follows:
1. Allstate shall have until February 16, 2022 to submit its
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification;
and
2. Sayles shall have until March 9, 2022 to submit her Reply
papers in connection with her Motion for Class
Certification.
Allstate is an American insurance company, headquartered in
Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967. Founded
in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., it was spun off in 1993.
The company also has personal lines insurance operations in
Canada.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sfDBSv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES KANNEBECKER
104 West High Street
Milford, PA 19103-7225
Telephone: (570) 296-6471
The Defendant is represented by:
Marc E. Wolin, Esq.
SAIBER LLC
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 622-3333
Facsimile: (973) 622-3349
E-mail: mwolin@saiber.com
AMERICAN INCOME: Betancourt Sues Over Illegal Fund Withdrawals
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE BETANCOURT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-00153 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for, inter alia, alleged violations of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff opened and paid for a life insurance policy with
Defendant in 2019 and upgraded her insurance policy in the summer
of 2021. While upgrading her policy, the Defendant's insurance
agent asked Plaintiff if she knew of any friends or family who
might be interested in purchasing a similar policy. The Plaintiff
recommended her sister, Adriana Garcia.
Allegedly, the Defendant's agent promptly contacted Plaintiff's
sister and sold her an insurance policy. However, Plaintiff's
sister does not have a checking account so Defendant's agent used
Plaintiff's checking account information to complete the signing
process, charging Plaintiff three times for her sister's insurance
policy. The Plaintiff never gave Defendant permission to withdraw
funds from her checking account to pay for her sister's insurance
policy, the suit says.
American Income Life Insurance Company is a Texas-based insurance
company.[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
AMERICAN INT'L: General Pretrial Mng't Order Entered in Paguada
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE PAGUADA v. AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00827-PAE-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:
1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
discovery set by the Court.
2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
after the need for such an application arises and must
comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences are not required, but may be requested where
counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.
4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or
extensions will not be entertained.
American International Industries manufactures and distributes skin
care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AXCgUh at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Horry Cty., SC Votes to Settles Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Dale Shoemwaker, writing for The Sun news, report that Horry
County leaders voted to settle a class action lawsuit against major
opioid distribution companies such as AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, Cardinal Health and McKesson Corporation, bringing a
multi-year case to a close. It is not clear, though, what the
settlement entails. Horry County leaders voted on Jan. 25 to accept
the terms of a lawsuit settlement but would not share details, or
even what case their vote referred to. Robert Kittle, the
spokesperson for South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson,
confirmed to The Sun News that the case county leaders voted to
settle was the class action suit against the opioid distributors.
The suit against the opioid distributors included Horry and Dillon
counties in South Carolina as well as a number of cities and
counties in Alabama and cities and counties in a number of other
states.
Kittle said the local governments that are party to the suit have
until tomorrow to vote on whether or not to join the settlement
agreement. Following that, the states' attorneys general have two
weeks to assess the settlement. The distribution companies then
have two weeks to finalize the settlement or not. By Feb. 25,
Kittle said, "we'll all know whether or not we'll have a deal."
Kittle, like Horry County Attorney Arrigo Carotti and Council
Chairman Johnny Gardner, said he could not share details of the
settlement since all parties had not finalized it yet. Jamal
Campbell, a county council member in Dillon County, said he and
other county officials had been briefed on the lawsuit settlement
and planned to vote on whether to join soon. Kittle said that any
dollar amount that's ultimately part of the settlement will be
divvied up among the plaintiffs via a formula and that the money
would be required to go toward "approved abatements" such as law
enforcement efforts, Narcan distribution or education. He said he
could not share what amount of funding Horry County or other South
Carolina counties might receive. Horry County leaders, though, told
The Sun News that the lawsuit settlement is favorable for the
county. Both Gardner and county council member Johnny Vaught
declined to provide any details about the settlement. "It's a good
thing," Gardner said.
"It's a win for us," added Vaught. Carotti declined to comment on
the lawsuit settlement on Jan. 24. Horry County spokesperson Kelly
Moore said in a statement on Jan. 25 it's the county's policy to
not "offer commentary on substantive matters related to pending
litigation." Messages sent to the attorneys representing Horry
County in the case were not returned prior to publication. Messages
seeking comment from AmerisourceBergen, the lead defendant on the
case, were not returned prior to publication. In it's original
lawsuit filed in 2018, Horry County alleged AmerisourceBergen and
the other distribution companies had a legal duty to detect and
halt "suspicious orders" of opioids originating from Horry County,
and that the companies failed to do so. The Sun News has previously
detailed how the county was once home to a "pill mill" that
distributed large quantities of Oxycontin and other opioids. The
volume of opioids flowing into Horry County via the distributors,
the county alleged in the lawsuit, caused the county to achieve an
"opioid prescription rate of 110.7 per 100 persons, one of the
highest in the state of South Carolina." The county cited a
statistic that 101 people died of opioid overdoses in 2016. That
figure climbed to 131 deaths as of 2019. "The sheer volume of
prescription opioids distributed to pharmacies in Horry County,
South Carolina, is patently excessive for the medical needs of the
community and facially suspicious," the county alleged in its 2018
suit. "Meanwhile, the opioid epidemic continues to rage unabated in
the nation, the state and Horry County." Horry County leaders said
more details about the settlement will be released to the public
soon. [GN]
AMICA MUTUAL: Gottlieb Appeals Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff PETER A. GOTTLIEB filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled PETER A. GOTTLIEB, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMICA
MUTUAL INSURANCE, COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10509-DJC,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
On Jan. 31, 2020, Gottlieb filed the putative class action in
Massachusetts Superior Court. Amica removed the action to the
District Court on March 12, 2020. Gottlieb alleges that Amica has
charged him and other homeowners who are Amica insurance
policyholders excessive and unsupported premium increases based on
purported increases in reconstruction costs.
Gottlieb asserted five claims against Amica arising from Amica's
alleged excessive premium increases: (1) breach of contract; (2)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3)
unjust enrichment; (4) money had and received; and (5) unfair or
deceptive acts under M.G.L. c. 93A.
On Dec. 21, 2020, Judge Denise J. Casper granted in part and denied
in part Amica's motion to dismiss. Specifically, Judge Casper
dismissed the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing claims. She dismissed the Chapter
93A claim to the extent that it was based on the breach of contract
and/or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing but allowed it to proceed only to the extent that it relied
upon the conduct underlying the unjust enrichment and money had and
received claims.
On March 11, 2021, Gottlieb filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, which sought to change the proposed class from
Massachusetts residents only to residents of all fifty states. He
also explained that the dismissed counts had been left in the
proposed amended complaint "to preserve and clarify the Plaintiff's
right in the event of any subsequent appeals."
On September 13, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On January 11, 2022, Judge Casper entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and allowing Amica's motion
for summary judgment.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Gottlieb v. Amica Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 22-1074, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Jan. 28, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PETER A. GOTTLIEB, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Brendan M. Bridgeland, Esq.
Noah Rosmarin, Esq.
John Peter Zavez, Esq.
ADKINS KELSTON & ZAVEZ PC
90 Canal St., Ste 500
Boston, MA 02114-0000
Telephone: (617) 367-1040
E-mail: bbridgeland@akzlaw.com
nrosmarin@akzlaw.com
jzavez@akzlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:
Anthony Joseph Antonellis, Esq.
Laura M. Gregory, Esq.
Christopher Michael Reilly, Esq.
SLOANE & WALSH LLP
1 Boston Pl, 201 Washington St. Ste 1600
Boston, MA 02108-0000
Telephone: (617) 523-6010
E-mail: aantonellis@sloanewalsh.com
creilly@sloanewalsh.com
ANGRY SUPPLEMENTS: Case Mng't Plan, Sched Order Entered in Weekes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WEEKES,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ANGRY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10222-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows :
-- All fact discovery shall be May 31, 2022
completed no later than:
-- All expert discovery shall July 15, 2022
be completed no later than:
-- The next Case Management June 21, 2022
Conference is scheduled for:
The parties are directed to file a joint status report not later
than one week in advance of the Case Management Conference. The
parties should indicate whether they anticipate filing motion(s)
for summary judgment and whether they believe the case should be
referred to a Magistrate Judge for settlement discussions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B5Ab97 at no extra charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: AppleCare Class Settlement Hearing Set on April 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Peterson, writing for Apple Insider, reports that
administrators of Apple's $95 million settlement over the
definition of refurbished replacement devices is now contacting
customers who may be eligible for a payout.
Back in 2021, Apple agreed to pay $95 million to settle a class
action lawsuit alleging that it offered refurbished replacement
devices that were not "equivalent to new in performance and
reliability."
Recently, the website for the "Replacement Device Lawsuit" has been
updated and case administrators have begun contacting potential
class members who could be eligible for a payment.
Customers who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+ for an iPhone and
iPad on or after July 20, 2012 and received a refurbished
replacement device could be included in the class.
The lawsuit originated in 2016, when claimants alleged that
refurbished or remanufactured devices offered by Apple as
replacements were not functionally the same as new products. The
complaint alleged that replacement devices were "secondhand unit[s]
that [have] been modified to appear to be new."
Apple has agreed to settlement the lawsuit with a $95 million
payment, but did not publicly admit to any wrongdoing. It still
denies that refurbished devices are somehow inferior to new
products.
Although the settlement has received preliminary approval, a final
hearing is slated for April 27, 2022. Class members won't be able
to receive any payments before then. [GN]
ARS NATIONAL: Okten FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NATALIE OKTEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1 to 10, Case No. ESX-L-9782-21, was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division Special Civil Part, Essex County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
January 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-00443 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
ARS National Services, Inc. is a financial institution in
Escondido, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 471-6200
Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
BEKAERT CORP: Bid for Conditional Class Status Due May 6
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walker v. Bekaert
Corporation, Case No. 5:21-cv-01468 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Sara Lioi entered an order granting the plaintiff's unopposed
motion to extend deadlines
-- The deadline for plaintiff's motion May 6, 2022
for conditional class certification,
expedited opt-in discovery and court-
supervised notice to Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs is:
-- Deadline for defendant's opposition to June 29, 2022
motion for conditional class
certification:
-- Deadline for plaintiff's Reply in July 19, 2022
Support of Conditional Class
Certification is:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Bekaert develops and manufactures fencing products for the
agricultural industry.[CC]
BIAS & ASSOCIATES: Berry Seeks to Vacate Class Status Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHIL BERRY v. TERRI BIAS &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00854-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order vacating the motion for
class certification deadline provided by LR 23.1(b).
The Plaintiff initiated this class action on November 4, 2021 and
at Defendant's request provided a waiver of service. Accordingly,
Defendant filed its answer on January 6, 2022.
Although the Plaintiff has been diligently investigating his
claims, as discovery has not opened, the Plaintiff has been
precluded from issuing discovery. The Plaintiff has attempted to
conduct a Rule 26 conference with Defendant's counsel and, even
coordinated a date and time for such conference but Defendant's
counsel did not answer the call. Similarly, although the Plaintiff
has asked Defendant's position on this motion and had a call
scheduled with counsel, the Plaintiff has not received a response
to his request for Defendant's position on the present
motion.
The Plaintiff's counsel understands that Defendant's counsel is
dealing with a personal family matter, which is making him
unavailable and/or delaying his response.
The Plaintiff should have the opportunity to conduct discovery
concerning, at a minimum, class certification issues prior to
moving for class certification. Although Plaintiffs filed the
motion to stay one day after the 90-day deadline had passed,
Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to conduct discovery.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34kC1Xo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Ted Lewis Johnson, Esq.
PO Box 5272
Greensboro, NC 27435
Telephone: (336) 252-8596
E-mail: tedlewisjohnson@tedlewisjohnson.com
BKP INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Status Bid Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA MILES A.K.A. ELISA
MARIE MILES; and those similarly situated, v. BKP INC. et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-01212-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order granting extensions of time pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1 to respond to (1) Plaintiff Lisa Miles' Motion
for Class Certification Under Rule 23(b)(3) and Appointment of
Class Counsel under Rule 23(g); and (2) the Court's Order of
January 31, 2022 regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.
Specifically, the Defendants request an extending the time through
and including February 11, 2022 to comply with the January 31, 2022
Court's Order regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, and an
extension of time through and including February 14, 2022 to submit
its response to the Motion for Class Certification.
On January 22, 2022, Defendants' counsel's law firm experienced a
computer network outage. Since that time and as of the date of this
filing, the Defendants' counsel has not had access to word
processing documents, case files, case documents, or exhibits. As a
result, Defendants' counsel has been unable to access Defendants'
partially completed response to the Motion for Class Certification,
nor can Defendants' counsel access exhibit documents for the
response or the documents to be produced to Judge Hegarty for in
camera review pursuant to the Order.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34anSwb
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brooke A. Colaizzi, Esq.
Raymond M. Deeny, Esq.
Heather F. Vickles, Esq.
SHERMAN & HOWARD, L.L.C.
675 Fifteenth Street, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 297-2900
Facsimile: (303) 298-0940
BLAND LANDSCAPING: Roldan Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL ROLDAN, v. BLAND
LANDSCAPING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:20-CV-00276-KDB-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell entered an order:
granting part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class conditionally
Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for
Court-Authorized Notice to be Issued Under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), for Class Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and for
Appointment of Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g):
1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed FLSA
collective action class on behalf of:
"All individuals who were, are, or will be employed by
Defendant as Foremen, at any time within the three year
period prior to the date of the commencement of this
action, through the present, and who did not receive
compensation for all hours worked, at the appropriate
rate, including one- and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours worked over 40 in a week."
2. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) class on behalf of:
"All individuals who were, are, or will be employed by
Defendant in North Carolina as Foremen, at any time
within the two years prior to the date of commencement
of this action through the present, and who did not
receive compensation for all hours worked, at the
promised rates, including, one- and one-half times their
regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a week
and/or who were subject to a "uniform service" deduction
or other wage deduction not specifically permitted by
law or authorized in writing by the Foremen."
3. appointing Manuel Roldan as class representative for both
of the certified classes;
4. appoinitng The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLCC as
Class Counsel to both of the certified classes;
5. directing the Defendant shall produce to Defendant an
updated production of names, last known mailing addresses,
alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses,
and dates of employment for all putative class members;
and
6. directing the Parties to confer and file, within 14 days
of the date of this order, a jointly prepared draft Notice
to the certified classes consistent with this Order.
Bland provides landscaping services. The Company offers ground
management, landscape designs and installations, and irrigation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AQeNo1 at no extra charge.[CC]
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen Seeks 7-Day Briefing Extension
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE ZEYEN, et al., v.
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00207-RCT (D.
Idaho), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
7-day extension from February 8, 2022 to February 15, 2022, to file
their:
1. Reply to the AJH defendants' Opposition to Class
Certification;
2. Reply to the HTEF defendants' Objection for Class
Certification; and
3. Response to the HTEF defendants' motion to strike
Declarations/Reports of Plaintiffs' Experts; and
4. Response to the AJH defendants' motion to strike
Declarations/Reports of Plaintiffs' Experts.
The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school
district in Boise, Idaho. The district was founded in 1865 under
the auspices of Idaho.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sainW3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Huntley, Esq.
R. HUNTLEY LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 2188
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: (208) 388-1230
Facsimile: (208) 388-0234
E-mail: rhuntley@huntleylaw.com
- and -
T. Jason Wood, ISB No. 5016
WOOD LAW G ROUP, PC
1488 Midway Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83406
Telephone: (208) 497-0400
Facsimile: (208) 932-4380
E-mail: jason@woodlaw.net
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Dixon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismisses the lawsuit titled JAMES DIXON v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Case No. 20-3272-WBV-JVM
(E.D. La.).
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America
Production Company (collectively, "BP"). The Motion was noticed for
submission on Jan. 11, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, any
response was due by Jan. 3, 2022. As of the date of the Order, no
opposition has been filed. Additionally, the Plaintiff, James
Dixon, has not moved for an extension of the submission date or his
deadline to file an opposition brief. Thus, the Motion is
unopposed.
Factual Background
The case arises from James Dixon's alleged exposure to harmful
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred
on April 20, 2010. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge
Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement (the "MSA"). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation
Option ("BELO") that permits certain class members, such as
clean-up workers who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue
BP for Later-Manifested Physical Conditions ("LMPC's").
The MSA defines a LMPC as a: "physical condition that is first
diagnosed in a MEDICAL BENEFITS SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER after April
16, 2012, and which is claimed to have resulted from exposure to
oil, other hydrocarbons, or other substances released from the
MC252 WELL and/or the Deepwater Horizon and its appurtenances,
and/or exposure to dispersants and/or decontaminants used in
connection with the RESPONSE ACTIVITIES, where such exposure
occurred on or prior to April 16, 2012 for CLEAN-UP WORKERS."
Mr. Dixon alleges that after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, he
was hired to operate vessels and assist with the clean-up of oil
from Breton Sound and other surrounding waters of the Gulf of
Mexico, which involved assisting with the unloading and collecting
of cleanup boom and skimming spilled oil from the surface of the
water. He alleges that his assistance in the Deepwater Horizon
clean-up effort exposed him to harmful substances, including "oil,
chemical dispersants, and degreasing chemicals by, inter alia,
inhalation, ingestion, dermal exposure, absorption of the skin, and
through contact with the eyes."
Mr. Dixon asserts that he was diagnosed with colon cancer and
prostate cancer "after April 16, 2012," which classifies them as
LMPC's. He further alleges that he sustained these medical
conditions as a proximate result of BP's negligence that resulted
in his exposure to crude oil, dispersants, degreasing chemicals
and/or the mixtures of oil/dispersant/chemicals.
BP filed the instant Motion on Dec. 27, 2021, asserting that it is
entitled to summary judgment because Dixon has not submitted an
expert report and, thus, cannot prove that his alleged medical
conditions were legally caused by his exposure to substances
related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP claims that the MSA
requires BELO plaintiffs like Dixon to prove legal causation, i.e.,
that their adverse physical conditions were caused by exposure to
crude oil, dispersants, or other spill-related chemicals during
their work in the clean-up response.
BP asserts that Dixon failed to identify a single expert witness,
who can offer any evidence of causation by the Dec. 15, 2021
deadline set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order. BP notes that
while Dixon has produced medical records related to his January
2018 and October 2018 cancer diagnoses, these records do not
discuss causation. BP asserts that the Fifth Circuit and nine
Sections of this Court have issued opinions expressly addressing
the obligation of a BELO plaintiff to prove legal causation.
BP claims that due to the technical nature of the proof required to
establish causation, BELO courts have uniformly concluded that BELO
plaintiffs need expert testimony to meet their burden. BP argues
that because Dixon failed to submit an expert report or make any
expert disclosures by the Court's Dec. 15, 2021 deadline, Dixon
cannot meet his burden of proof on causation as a matter of law and
his claims must be dismissed. The Plaintiff did not file any
response to BP's Motion.
Analysis
As BP correctly points out, the Fifth Circuit and at least nine
other Sections of this Court have uniformly held that, with regard
to BELO plaintiff's in Dixon's position, absent expert testimony, a
BELO plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proof on causation, Judge
Vitter notes.
The Court finds that because Dixon failed to identify a causation
expert in this case by the Court's Dec. 15, 2021 deadline and did
not move for an extension of that deadline, or for an extension of
his deadline to respond to the instant Motion, he cannot meet his
burden of proof on causation. Accordingly, BP is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
Conclusion
For these reasons, it is ordered that BP's Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Jan. 13,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ekrn5jd from
Leagle.com.
BROOKLYN WILD: Anderson Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Anderson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Brooklyn Wild
Catch LLC, Brooklyn Wild Catch II, LLC, Robert Dorsey, and Angeline
Cornelius, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00527 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28,
2022) is brought by the Plaintiff seeking recovery, for himself and
all other similarly situated individuals, against Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State
Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations.
The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper
minimum, overtime, and spread-of-hours wages, failure to provide
accurate wage notices and wage statements, as well as Defendants'
engagement in unlawful deductions.
Plaintiff Anderson was employed as a non-managerial employee at
Brooklyn Wild Catch restaurant from August 29, 2020 through
November 17, 2020, and from December 11, 2020 through March 23,
2021.
Brooklyn Wild Catch LLC owns, operates and/or controls the
restaurants located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
BUMBLE INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of March 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Bumble Inc. ("Bumble" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BMBL) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Bumble securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the September 10, 2021 SPO. Investors have until March
25, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, the SPO's registration statement
contained inaccurate statements of material fact because it failed
to disclose that: (1) Bumble's paying user growth trends had
abruptly reversed in 3Q21 and Bumble had actually lost tens of
thousands of paying users during the quarter; (2) paying users had
been more reluctant to sign up for the Bumble app during 3Q21
because of the recent price hike for paid services on the app; (3)
a material number of paying users were leaving the Badoo app and/or
could not make payments through the Badoo app due, in substantial
part, to problems arising from Bumble's transition of its payment
platform; and (4) as a result, Bumble's business metrics and
financial prospects were not as strong as the registration
statement had represented. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Bumble 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]
BUMBLE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 25
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Bumble Inc. (NASDAQ: BMBL) in
connection with the Company's September 10, 2021 secondary public
offering (the "SPO"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than March 25, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Bumble securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Bumble class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2243.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 25, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the SPO's
registration statement contained inaccurate statements of material
fact because it failed to disclose that: (1) Bumble's paying user
growth trends had abruptly reversed in 3Q21 and Bumble had actually
lost tens of thousands of paying users during the quarter; (2)
paying users had been more reluctant to sign up for the Bumble app
during 3Q21 because of the recent price hike for paid services on
the app; (3) a material number of paying users were leaving the
Badoo app and/or could not make payments through the Badoo app due,
in substantial part, to problems arising from Bumble's transition
of its payment platform; and (4) as a result, Bumble's business
metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as the
registration statement had represented. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Bumble class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2243.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BUMBLE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf
of purchasers of Bumble Inc. (NASDAQ: BMBL) Class A common stock
who bought shares directly on Bumble's secondary public stock
offering which took place on or about September 10, 2021 (the
"SPO").
All investors who purchased the shares of Bumble Inc. on the SPO
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in Bumble Inc., you may, no later than
March 25, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff
of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn
more about your rights as an investor in Bumble Inc.
On November 10, 2021, Bumble announced its 3Q21 financial results,
disclosing that, rather than growing paying users, Bumble's total
paying user count had actually declined to 2.86 million, well below
Bumble's 2.9 million reported paying users as of June 30, 2021 as
highlighted in the registration statement.
Subsequent to the SPO, the price of Bumble Class A common stock
declined substantially. By January 24, 2022, Bumble Class A common
stock traded below $27 per share, a decline of more than 50% from
the SPO price.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
CACI INTERNATIONAL: April 11 Hearing on Pittmon Class Cert Bid Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa Pittmon and Joel
MacKay, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the general public, v. CACI International, Inc. and
CACI, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02044-CJC-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order granting Parties' joint
stipulation for extension of time to move for class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs' opening brief on Feb. 21, 2022
the motion for class certification
shall be due:
-- The opposition shall be due on: March 14, 2022
-- The reply brief shall be due on: March 28, 2022
-- The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion April 11, 2022
for Class Certification shall
be heard on:
CACI International is an American multinational professional
services and information technology company headquartered in
Northern Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HtrdEH at no extra charge.[CC]
CAPTION CALL: Brady Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRENDA BRADY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAPTION CALL LLC, DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. A-21-844556, was removed from the Eighth
Judicial District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada on January 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-00164 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
overtime wages and failure to timely pay wages in violation of the
Nevada Revised Statutes.
Caption Call LLC is a telephone service provider based in Utah.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joel E. Tasca, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 900
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: (702) 471-7000
Facsimile: (702) 471-7070
E-mail: tasca@ballardspahr.com
CARRIER GLOBAL: Time to File Class Status Bid Extended
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR, et al., v. CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00839 (M.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge Joe L. Webster entered an order granting motion for
extension of time to file motion for class certification.
The time in which Plaintiffs may file a motion for class
certification will be reset at such time as the parties have
conducted a Rule 26(f) conference and the Court issues an Initial
Pretrial Order, says Judge Webster.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.
Carrier Global is an American multinational home appliances
corporation based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.[CC]
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Misled Investors to OK Tender Offer, Jones Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CASTLIGHT HEALTH, INC., MAEVE O'MEARA, BRYAN
ROBERTS, DAVID B. SINGER, DAVID EBERSMAN, SETH COHEN, ED PARK,
MICHAEL EBERHARD, KENNY VAN ZANT, JUDITH K. VERHAVE and WILLIAM
BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 2022-0100 (Del. Ch.,
January 28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.
According to the complaint, Castlight filed a materially misleading
recommendation statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 19, 2022 in order to convince Castlight
stockholders to accept the tender offer in the proposed acquisition
of Castlight by Vera Whole Health, Inc. Specifically, the
recommendation statement fails to disclose material information
concerning (i) the full scope of William Blair & Company's
conflicts; (ii) Castlight's projections including the most critical
financial metric for Castlight stockholders in evaluating the
financial fairness of the offer price, Castlight's free cash flow
projections, relied upon by the company's financial advisor,
William Blair; (iii) the potential conflicts of interest of company
insiders; and (iv) the company's negotiations and agreements
entered into with Anthem, Inc. It is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the recommendation statement
is disclosed to the company's stockholders prior to the expiration
of the tender offer so they can properly determine whether to
tender their shares in the tender offer or seek appraisal. The
Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of Castlight will
suffer the irreparable injury of an uninformed tender or appraisal
decision and they may not receive the true value of their
investment if this material information is not timely disseminated,
the suit alleges.
Castlight Health, Inc. is a healthcare navigation company, with its
principal executive offices located at 150 Spear Street, Suite 400,
San Francisco, California.
William Blair & Company, LLC is a global boutique focused on
investment banking, investment management, and private wealth
management, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com
CD PROJEKT: Enters Negotiations to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CD Projekt might soon be able to settle a class-action lawsuit from
investors over Cyberpunk 2077's botched launch. However, it doesn't
mean that the company is going to accept all allegations against
it.
The US District Court for the Central District of California
suspended all proceedings because a law firm representing CD
Projekt entered negotiations with investors, the company reported
on December 8.
If both parties reach the settlement, they should file for its
approval by the court until January 13.
"It should also be noted that entering into negotiations concerning
a potential settlement should in no way be construed as acceptance
by the Company or members of its Management Board of any
allegations expressed in the plaintiffs' court filings," CD Projekt
wrote in a statement.
CD Projekt has faced at least five class-action lawsuits since the
release of Cyberpunk 2077. In May, four of them filed in the US
were united into one, with investors accusing the company of
concealing important information regarding the game's technical
issues from investors.
As for now, CD Projekt continues to work on Cyberpunk 2077's
next-gen versions and believes that it "will sell for years" after
it is finally fixed and improved.[GN]
CD PROJEKT: Finally Settles $1.85 Million Cyberpunk Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evgeny Obedkov at gameworldobserver.com reports that CD Projekt has
announced that it came to an agreement with investors to settle a
class-action lawsuit over Cyberpunk 2077's controversial launch. It
also means that the company doesn't admit any responsibility on its
part.
On January 27, a formal stipulation and agreement of settlement
were concluded between CD Projekt and its investors, the company
reported on its official website. The information comes from the
law firm representing the Cyberpunk 2077 creator in the US.
It is worth noting that CD Projekt can terminate this settlement,
which is standard practice in class-action cases like this. The
statement also reads that the "company and other defendants named
in the case refuse to admit any wrongdoing."
CD Projekt didn't mention the final sum that will be paid to
investors. However, the report from December 2017 said that it will
cost the company and Colonnade Insurance S.A. only $1.85 million.
A few groups of investors have filed several lawsuits against the
Polish company since the Cyberpunk 2077 launch. Four of them were
united into one in May 2021, with plaintiffs accusing CD Projekt of
concealing important information regarding the game's technical
issues from investors. [GN]
CHEGG INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of February 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 25 disclosed that investors
with substantial losses have opportunity to lead the securities
fraud class action lawsuit against Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CHGG).
Class Period: May 5, 2020 – November 1, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2022
Investors suffering losses on their Chegg 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.
The complaint filed alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Chegg's
increase in subscribers, growth, and revenue had been a temporary
effect of the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in remote education
for the vast majority of United States students and once the
pandemic-related restrictions eased and students returned to
campuses nationwide, Chegg's extraordinary growth trends would end;
(2) Chegg's subscriber and revenue growth were largely due to the
facilitation of remote education cheating -- an unstable business
proposition -- rather than the strength of its business model or
the acumen of its senior executives and directors; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to the pending class action lawsuit, 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. [GN]
CLARIVATE PLC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Clarivate Plc ("Clarivate" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CLVT) securities between February 26, 2021
and December 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Clarivate
investors have until March 25, 2022 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
On December 27, 2021, Clarivate disclosed that previous financial
reports "should no longer be relied upon because of an error in
such financial statements." The Company specified that the error
relates "to the treatment under U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles ('GAAP') relating to an equity plan included in the CPA
Global business combination, which was consummated on October 1,
2020 ('the CPA Global Transaction'). In the affected financial
statements, certain awards made by CPA Global under its equity plan
were incorrectly included as part of the acquisition accounting for
the CPA Global Transaction."
On this news, Clarivate's stock fell $1.70, or 6.9%, to close at
$22.78 per share on December 28, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed 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 that: (1) Clarivate
maintained defective disclosure controls and procedures as a result
of a material weakness in its internal control over financial
reporting; (2) the foregoing material weakness was not limited to
how the Company accounted for warrants; (3) as a result, Clarivate
failed to properly account for an equity plan included in its
acquisition of CPA Global; (4) accordingly, the Company was
reasonably likely to restate one or more of its previously issued
financial statements following its acquisition of CPA Global; and
(5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Clarivate securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 25, 2022 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Clarivate securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CLEVELAND, OH: Doniver Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA DONIVER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00154 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 28, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's practices and policies of not paying Plaintiff and
hourly, non-exempt employees wages for all hours worked, including
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all the hours worked over 40 each workweek,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant since
approximately December 2001. She is working in the Defendant's
Water Department.
Cleveland, officially the City of Cleveland, is a city in the U.S.
state of Ohio, and the county seat of Cuyahoga County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-111
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
CORIZON HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACHELLE PEARSON, MARIA
SHELDON, and RACHELL GARWOOD, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, KENNETH MCKEE, JEREMY
BUSH, LIA GULICK, MARTI KAY SHERRY, CRAIG HUTCHINSON, SHAWN BREWER,
DAVID JOHNSON, KARRI OSTERHOUT, KRISTINA FISHER, CARMEN MCINTYRE,
JAMES BLESSMAN, in their individual and official capacities,
CORIZON HEALTH, INC. a Delaware Corporation, JEFFREY BOMBER, ROBERT
LACY, KEITH PAPENDICK, and RICKEY COLEMAN, in their individual and
official capacities, Case No. 2:19-cv-10707-VAR-PTM (E.D. Mich. ),
the Hon. Judge entered an order that an extension of five months to
both the deadline to file motions for class certification and to
the deadline to complete discovery is both reasonable and necessary
in this case:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion July 1, 2022
for class certification by no later
than:
2. The parties shall complete discovery Feb. 7, 2023
by:
3. The upcoming status conferences Feb. 15, 2022 &
scheduled for: May 12, 2022
Corizon Health, formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical
Services, Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is a privately
held prison healthcare contractor in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Htrw2j at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiffs Pearson,
Sheldon, and Garwood, are:
Jonathan R. Marko, Esq.
MARKO LAW, PLLC
1300 Broadway Street, Suite 500
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 777-7LAW
E-mail: jon@markolaw.com
- and -
Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq.
Nicole J. Schladt, Esq.
Charles J. O'Meara, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
E-mail: morgan@nka.com
- and -
Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
PITT MCGEHEE PALMER &
RIVERS PC
Channing Robinson-Holmes (P81698
117 W. 4th Street, Suite 200
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: (248) 398-9800
E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
- and -
David S. Steingold, Esq.
Samantha M. Baker, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID S.
STEINGOLD, PLLC
500 Griswold St., Ste. 2320
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 962-0000
E-mail: detroitdefender@yahoo.com
- and -
Ari Kresch, Esq.
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
26700 Lahser Road, Ste 401
Southfield, MI 48033
Telephone: (866) 939-2656
- and -
Solomon A. Radner, Esq.
RADNER LAW GROUP, PLLC
17515 W. Nine Mile Rd Ste 1175
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (313) 355-3425
E-mail: solomon@radnerlawgroup.com
The Attorney for Plaintiff Smith, is:
Daniel Randazzo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL
RANDAZZO
2731 South Adams Rd., Ste. 100
Rochester Hills, MI 48309
Telephone: (248) 853-1003
Attyrandaz@aol.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Bush,
McKee, Fisher, Gulick, Sherry,
Brewer, Johnson, Osterhout
and Washington, are:
Kristin M. Heyse, Esq.
Joshua S. Smith, Esq.
Michael R. Dean, Esq.
John L. Thurber, Esq.
Zachary A. Zurek, Esq.
Sara E. Trudgeon, Esq.
Jennifer Foster, Esq.
Keith G. Clark, Esq.
MI DEP'T OF ATTORNEY GEN.
MDOC Division
P.O. Box 30217
Lansing, MI 48909
Telephone: (517) 335-3055
The Attorneys for the Defendants
Corizon, Papendick, Lacy,
Hutchinson, and Bomber, are:
Ronald W. Chapman, Sr., Esq.
CHAPMAN LAW GROUP
1441 West Long Lake Rd, Suite 310
Troy, MI 48098
Telephone: (248) 644-6326
E-mail: rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants
McIntyre and Blessman, are:
Cullen B. McKinney, Esq.
Thomas P. Sullivan, Esq.
TANOURY NAUTS MCKINNEY & DWAIHY
38777 Six Mile Road, Ste. 101
Livonia, MI 48152
Telephone: (313) 964-4500
E-mail: Cullen.mckinney@TNMGLaw.com
CYIENT INC: Chapman Sues Over Illegal No Poach Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------
JASON CHAPMAN, CRAIG JOHNSTON and THOMAS BORINO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CYIENT,
INC., RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION,
AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC., BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC, PARAMETRIC
SOLUTIONS, INC., and QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00166 (D. Conn., Jan. 28, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiffs challenging an illegal conspiracy among
Pratt & Whitney Division and several outsource engineering
suppliers to restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and
other skilled laborers, including Plaintiffs, working on aerospace
projects among their respective companies, in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into and
maintained a no-poach agreement at least as early as 2011 and
continued it until at least 2019. Throughout this time, and indeed
until just recently, Defendants concealed their no-poach agreement
from their employees and independent contractors, asserts the
complaint.
The alleged no-poach agreement was intended to, and did, reduce
competition for engineers' services and, as a result, suppressed
the job mobility of and compensation to Plaintiffs and the members
of the proposed Class below the levels that would have prevailed
but for the illegal no-poach agreement.
The Defendants are aerospace engineering companies in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
Cody N. Guarnieri, Esq.
BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
100 Pearl Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-3343
Facsimile: (860) 522-2490
E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com
cody@bpslawyers.com
DATTATRAY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graham Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
AARON GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DATTATRAY, INC., KEYUR PATEL, and CHIRAG PATEL,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00071-P (N.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2022) is
brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
arising from the Defendants' alleged illegal policy or labor
practice.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs owed
to him individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants performing maintenance and
custodial services. He provided routine building maintenance,
repaired broken fixtures and property at the motel, and cleaned the
motel.
Dattatray, Inc. operates a Super 8 Motel located in Mineral Wells,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay K. Wieser, Esq.
Lauren Johnson, Esq.
WIESER LAW PLLC
3732 Hulen Street, Suite 100
Fort Worth, TX 76107
Telephone: (817) 242-8490
E-mail: jay@wlawpllc.com
lauren@wlawpllc.com
DENVER HEALTH: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Nichols
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL NICHOLS, on behalf
of herself and similarly situated employees, v. DENVER HEALTH AND
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02818-RMR-KLM (d. Colo.), the
Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment:
1. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment, is granted
as to Plaintiff's Claims I, II, III, IV, and VIII.
2. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as
to Plaintiff's Claims V, VI, and VII.
3. The Defendant's Motion to Strike the Expert Report of Dr.
Kuang, is denied as moot.
4. The Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr.
Salzburgis denied as moot.
5. The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class for Count III
Pattern or Practice Claim,is denied as moot.
This matter arises out of Plaintiff's termination from Defendant
Denver Health and Hospitality Authority on June 21, 2019. The
Plaintiff was hired in January 2017 as an employee relations
investigator.
Following her termination, the Plaintiff filed this action. The
Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint on September 14, 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action:
-- Racial discrimination in violation of Title VII and 42
U.S.C.section 1981 (Claims I and II);
-- Pattern and practice of discrimination based on race in
violation of Title VII and section 1981 (Claim III);
-- Retaliation under Title VII (Claim IV);
-- Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
for failure to accommodate (Claim V), unlawful termination
(Claim VI), and retaliation (Claim VII); and
-- Claim for promissory estoppel (Claim VIII).
The Plaintiff's employment with Defendant was at-will. The
Plaintiff's primary duties included conducting investigations into
employee complaints, conducting interviews into complaints,
completing written investigative reports, and making
recommendations as to possible discipline.
The Plaintiff was directly supervised by Sheila Paukert beginning
in January 2018 and was subsequently supervised by Jill Damman
beginning in June 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Paukert's
treatment toward her during her employment was dismissive, rude,
and unpleasant.
Denver Health is a hospital in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of
Denver, founded in 1860.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gj9WNd at no extra charge.[CC]
DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Employee Retirement Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action claims DISH Network Corporation and its board of
directors and retirement plan committee have run afoul of federal
law by failing to maintain reasonable plan expenses and select
better performing investment options.
The 44-page lawsuit alleges that the defendants' failure to
properly monitor the plan's recordkeeping and administrative fees
and choose the best available investment options have had "stark
financial consequences" for participants and their beneficiaries,
whose retirement savings, the case says, have been vastly depleted
as a result. The suit says DISH and its directors and retirement
plan committee have breached their fiduciary duties under the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The lawsuit explains that a defined contribution plan with
substantial assets such as DISH Network's 401(k) plan, which had
nearly 19,000 participants and roughly $841 million in assets by
the end of 2020, have "significant bargaining power" when it comes
to negotiating for low-cost recordkeeping and administrative fees.
Given the size of the DISH Network plan, the defendants should have
been able to obtain much lower fees by consistently seeking out
quotes from other recordkeeping and administrative service
providers and obtaining competitive rates, the complaint alleges.
According to the suit, the defendants have imprudently allowed the
DISH plan to be charged fees that "far exceeded the reasonable
market rate."
As the case tells it, even small differences in fee costs can have
a substantial effect on the amount of retirement funds available to
plan participants given the extra expenses compound over time.
"Had Defendants appropriately monitored the compensation paid to
Fidelity and ensured that participants were only charged reasonable
[recordkeeping and administrative] fees, Plan participants would
not have lost millions of dollars in their retirement savings over
the last six-plus years," the lawsuit contests.
The case goes on to claim that the defendants failed to prudently
choose the best available investment options for their retirement
plan, and instead offered a suite of risky and more costly target
date funds. According to the suit, there were "substantially less
costly and less risky" target date funds available from Fidelity
Management & Research Company that would have performed better and
been a more appropriate offering for the plan. The lawsuit claims
"[a] simple weighing of the benefits" of the available target date
funds would have tipped off any prudent fiduciary that the funds
chosen by DISH were not the best options for the plan.
"Had Defendants carried out their responsibilities in a
single-minded manner with an eye focused solely on the interests of
the participants, they would have come to this conclusion and acted
upon it," the complaint claims. "Instead, Defendants failed to act
in the sole interest of Plan participants, and breached their
fiduciary duty by imprudently selecting and retaining the Active
suite."
According to the case, the defendants' choice of Fidelity's Active
suite and other "objectively imprudent investment options" has
caused plan participants to lose out on millions in investment
returns for their retirement savings.
The lawsuit looks to represent those who participated in or were
beneficiaries of the DISH Network Corporation 401(k) plan at any
time after January 20, 2016 and until the date of judgment in the
case (or an earlier date deemed appropriate by the court),
including any beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in
the plan during that time. [GN]
DJI TECHNOLOGY: Drones Fall Short on Product Specs, Kinder Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kinder and Brandon Moss, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DJI Technology, Inc., SZ DJI
Technology Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00601 (N.D. Cal.,
January 28, 2022), seeks redress for breach of express warranty,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and for
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
DJI manufactures, distributes, promotes, markets, advertises,
sells, and/or engages in transactions with consumers for a variety
of drone products and is headquartered in Shenzhen, China.
Kinder purchased a DJI Mavic Air 2 while Moss purchased a DJI Mavic
Air 2 Bundle. They claim that the battery life for single charge
will not support the drone's flight time representations and
warranties; said drones cannot travel for the stated distance/video
transmission per the specifications; and the images from the
onboard camera being transmitted to the personal video display
device are interrupted and/or fail within the range represented and
warrantied by DJI. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Tel: (949) 270-2798
Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
- and -
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
John Glugoski, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, PC
220 Halleck Street, Suite 220
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
Email: matt@righettilaw.com
jglugoski@righettilaw.com
- and -
John Christian Bohren, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BOHREN
P.O. Box 12174
San Diego, CA 92112-3174
Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com
DYE & DURHAM: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Fee Hikes
-------------------------------------------------------
Jaren Kerr, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that real
estate lawyers met with a litigation firm on Jan. 25 to explore a
potential class-action lawsuit against Dye & Durham Ltd. DND-T in
response to the legal software provider announcing price hikes on
Jan. 24, a year after raising them 400 per cent and guaranteeing
the price would not increase for three years.
The real estate practitioners attended a virtual meeting with
Toronto-based Charney Lawyers, which specializes in class-action
lawsuits. Some D&D customers allege the company did not honour a
three-year price freeze the company announced in an e-mail to
customers in January, 2021.
"We did meet with a number of very irate real estate practitioners
who are seriously considering commencing proceedings," said Ted
Charney, president of Charney Lawyers.
Last January, D&D raised the conveyancing fee to buy, sell or
refinance the mortgage on a property from $25 per transaction to
$129 per transaction in Ontario, after acquiring DoProcess,
Canada's largest provider of real estate practice-management
software, from Teranet Inc. in late 2020 for $530-million. Those
fees are passed on to home buyers as a closing cost.
"In recognition of your loyalty, current customers will receive a
minimum three-year price guarantee on purchase, sale, and mortgage
files, ensuring no further price increases in the foreseeable
future," D&D wrote to clients at the time in an e-mail obtained by
The Globe and Mail.
D&D clients in Ontario learned on Jan. 24 that their transaction
fee could rise to $249, amounting to a 900-per-cent increase in
just over one year. That transaction fee is the most expensive of
three packages clients will have to choose from to continue using
D&D's Unity software after Jan. 31.
The two other packages, which lock clients into a three-year
contract, are reserved for clients who process a minimum number of
deals each month. Clients that do a minimum of 100 deals each month
will pay $199 per transaction, and those that process a minimum of
50 will pay $229 per transaction. Users who do not sign up for a
specific package will be slotted into the contract-free
$249-per-transaction bundle on Jan. 31, along with small
practitioners in Ontario that do fewer than 50 deals each month.
D&D said the prices of bundles will vary by province.
"The bundles Dye & Durham announced on Jan. 24 a new and
fundamentally different product than what Unity was on its own,"
D&D chief commercial officer John Robinson said in a statement to
The Globe.
Mr. Robinson said that D&D has improved Unity's capabilities since
its acquisition. Real estate practitioners have disputed this
claim, arguing the product has deteriorated since the takeover.
"We believe Unity is the most advanced conveyancing software
product in the world today and drives significant efficiencies for
legal professionals," Mr. Robinson said. "Existing Unity customers
are not under contract and have always had the option to switch to
another software provider at any time."
Unity is the dominant conveyancing software in the Canadian market,
especially in Ontario. According to BMO Capital Markets analyst
Thanos Moschopoulos, Unity handles more than 700,000 transactions a
year in Ontario, and 1.4 million in Canada annually. There were
666,995 home resales in Canada last year, a record, according to
the Canadian Real Estate Association.
Some fed-up legal practitioners have shifted to other providers
such as Toronto's LawyerDoneDeal Corp., while others have remained
customers, citing high switching costs and the inconvenience of
eliminating a software their law practices are built on.
In a research note on Monday, Mr. Moschopoulos said the Unity price
hikes could "translate into $62-73-million of incremental annual
revenue" before accounting for churn. Even then, he expects churn
to be mitigated by the lack of viable competitors - other than
LawyerDoneDeal - and high switching costs, and because fees are
ultimately passed on to a lawyer's clients.
"The magnitude of the increase is such that D&D would likely be
able to withstand a very large spike in churn while still
meeting/beating consensus," he wrote.
Olena Chepil, a Toronto-based real estate lawyer, started building
Quintalink, an alternative to Unity, after the price hike last
year. She said the product will be cheaper to use than Unity, and
provide a better experience.
"Competition imposes the desire and ability to make products better
and more affordable," she said. "And right now there is none."
Ms. Chepil had planned to launch Quintalink in June, but is now
trying to accelerate the launch date after the D&D price increase,
which she said drove an influx of interest on Monday. She also
criticized D&D for giving its customers a week to pick a package,
and steering them into a three-year contract by making the most
expensive bundle commitment-free.
"My advice to lawyers would be just wait, be patient because I know
the new software is coming, and don't lock yourself into a contract
that you will have a very difficult time getting out of," she said.
"What may seem like a good saving right now may not be such a good
deal in three, four months. . . . Sign up for LawyerDoneDeal, sign
up for Quintalink, and then compare."
As she develops her software, Ms. Chepil said she is filing a
complaint about D&D to the federal Competition Bureau. Real estate
lawyers across the country have done so before. In British
Columbia, rate hikes by as much as 563 per cent on a D&D product
prompted dozens of complaints to the Competition Bureau, The Globe
reported in November.[GN]
EAST FREEWAY TRUCK: Shaikh Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arif M. Shaikh, and all others similarly situate, Plaintiffs, v.
East Freeway Truck Stop, Inc., Javed Shoaib, Shayan Farooqi and
Zain Farooqi, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00268 (S.D. Tex., January
27, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable
relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all
costs of the action, and post-judgment interest for failure to pay
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Shaikh was an employee who worked as a store clerk at a gas station
and convenience store owned, operated and controlled by the
Defendants. Shaikh did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 during each workweek, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
430 W. Bell Street
Houston, TX 77019
Telephone: (713) 898-0982
Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com
EASTLAND ASSOC: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Santos Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eastland Assoc. Corp. and Benedetto Cupo,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00707, (S.D. N.Y., January 27, 2022),
seeks to recover damages for violations of New York State labor
laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.
Rivera worked for Eastland as a carpenter. He claims to have worked
in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime premium,
spread-of-hours premium, and denied accurate wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com
ECP-PF CT OPERATIONS: Oldacre Sues Over Delay in Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Christopher Oldacre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ECP-PF CT Operations Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-00088 (W.D. N.Y., January 31, 2022), seeks liquidated
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees for Defendant's failure to
pay to pay manual workers on a weekly basis in violation of New
York labor laws.
ECP-PF CT Operations owns and operates a chain of Planet Fitness
locations where Oldacre was employed from approximately October
2021 to January 2022 at a Planet Fitness location in Cheektowaga,
New York. Oldacre's job responsibilities at Planet Fitness included
cleaning floors, cleaning exercise equipment, cleaning locker
rooms/restrooms, putting away exercise equipment and restocking
supplies. He claims to have been paid every other week, rather than
weekly, during the entirety of his employment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
CONNORS LLP
1000 Liberty Building
Buffalo, NY 14202
Tel: (716) 852-5533
Email: amd@connorsllp.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
ELKHART PRODUCTS: Wins Bid for Partial Dismissal of Alverson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
Fayetteville Division, grants the Defendant's motion for partial
dismissal of the lawsuit captioned as NIKI ALVERSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. ELKHART PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-CV-05191 (W.D. Ark.).
Background
The case is factually and procedurally related to another case
pending before this Court, McCoy v. Elkhart Products Corp., No.
5:20-CV-05176 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 28, 2021), of which the Court takes
judicial notice. McCoy was originally filed as an FLSA collective
action by the Sanford Law Firm, which represents the Plaintiffs in
the present case, and was conditionally certified. All Plaintiffs
joined in the lawsuit previously opted in as plaintiffs in McCoy
after receiving notice of that action.
On Aug. 17, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to decertify the
McCoy collective because discovery revealed the plaintiffs were not
similarly situated. McCoy agreed the class was not similarly
situated and decertification was proper but requested leave to
amend her complaint to remove 23 of the opt-in plaintiffs and add
the remaining 43 opt-in plaintiffs as named plaintiffs in that
action. Because the Court held that the standards for joinder under
the FLSA and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 are the same, the
Court denied McCoy leave to amend her complaint and dismissed all
opt-in plaintiffs from McCoy's action.
The day after the Court denied McCoy's motion to add 43 named
plaintiffs because they were not similarly situated, the Plaintiffs
filed the present action. The 43 dismissed opt-in plaintiffs are
named Plaintiffs in this action and allege the same claim at issue
in McCoy. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss all but one
Plaintiff for the same reason decertification was granted in McCoy.
The Plaintiffs contend that the standards for joinder under the
FLSA and Rule 20 differ and that joining all 43 Plaintiffs in this
action is proper.
A. Misjoinder and Severance
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1), multiple plaintiffs
may join in a single action if (1) they assert a right to relief
relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence,
or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some question of
law or fact common to all the parties [will] arise in the action,
District Judge P.K. Holmes, III, notes, citing Mosley v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974).
Just as these 43 Plaintiffs were not sufficiently similarly
situated to proceed in a collective action, they are not
sufficiently similarly situated to proceed as joint plaintiffs
under Rule 20, Judge Holmes holds. The Plaintiffs concede that
individualized questions of law and fact will arise in this case.
As in Botero v. Commonwealth Limousine Service Inc., the Court
finds that this case would likely devolve in 43 mini-trials
requiring different evidence, testimony, and necessitating
individualized factual findings, contrary to notions of judicial
efficiency. Additionally, requiring the Defendant to prepare to
defend against 43 mini-trials in one action would be contrary to
fundamental fairness and would result in unfair prejudice. Finally,
Judge Holmes opines, requiring a jury to make individualized
findings of fact for 43 Plaintiffs and keep these findings of fact
separate in their heads would create great risk of jury confusion.
These considerations necessitate dismissal of parties pursuant to
Rule 21.
Accordingly, all Plaintiffs with the exception of Plaintiff
Alverson will be dismissed from this case. If the dismissed
Plaintiffs wish to proceed with their claims against the Defendant,
they must do so by filing individual actions against the Defendant,
Judge Holmes says. To avoid prejudice to the dismissed Plaintiffs,
the Court orders that the statute of limitations be tolled from the
date of the filing of the Complaint until the date of this Order.
B. Attorney's Fees
The Defendant requests attorney's fees incurred in re-litigating
whether this case could proceed as group litigation after the Court
previously decided in McCoy that it could not.
Judge Holmes finds that the Defendant has incurred no more fees in
defending this action than it would have incurred briefing its
opposition to a Rule 60 motion in McCoy, which, though it would
have been denied, could have been filed in good faith. The Court
will not award fees in this case.
Conclusion
It is, therefore, ordered that the Defendant's motion to dismiss
parties is granted and the claims of all plaintiffs, except
Plaintiff Alverson, are dismissed without prejudice. This matter
will proceed only on the individual claims of Plaintiff Alverson.
The statute of limitations on all claims against the Defendant is
tolled for the 42 dismissed Plaintiffs for the period between the
filing of the Complaint and the date of this Order.
The parties are to file an updated Rule 26(f) report proposing
deadlines for the litigation of Plaintiff Alverson's individual
claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 13,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/27unx8yr from
Leagle.com.
ENCLARITY INC: Ct. Has Until Feb. 22 to Oppose Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW N. FULTON, DDS,
P.C., individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, v. ENCLARITY, INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK
SOLUTIONS INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS GA INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK
SOLUTIONS FL INC., and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No.
2:16-cv-13777-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Denise Page Hood
entered an order regarding briefing schedule for motions for
summary judgment and class certification as follows:
1. The Defendants shall have until February 22, 2022 to file
their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
2. The Plaintiff shall have until March 1, 2022 to file its
Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. The Plaintiff shall have until March 15, 2022 to file a
Reply in support of its Motion for Class Certification.
4. The Defendants shall have until March 22, 2022 to file a
Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Enclarity. provides healthcare information solutions.
LexisNexis Risk is a global data and analytics company that
provides data and technology services, analytics, predictive
insights and fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hpa3Ip at no extra charge.[CC]
ENSERV INC: Staff Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda McCloud and Donald Harper, Jr., on of behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Enserv, Inc. and
Energy Services Group International, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-00058 (E.D. Va., January 31, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Enserv provide staff workers to the energy and industrial
manufacturing sectors across the United States and bill clients for
the time worked by employees. Defendants hired McCloud in August of
2018. Enserv assigned McCloud and Harper to work in the Southern
Nuclear plant located in Georgia as Site Completions Manager and
Cyber Security Team Leader, respectively.
Plaintiffs claim to have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a
week but did not receive one-and-a-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 648-4848
Fax: (804) 237-0413
Email: harris@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
EOG RESOURCES: Joint Bid for Extension of Deadlines OK'd in Wake
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAKE ENERGY, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. EOG
RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00183-ABJ (Wyo.), the Hon. Judge
Kelly H. Rankin entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion
for extension of deadlines set in the order amending agreed
scheduling order.
The schedule/deadlines set in the Court's August 18, 2021 Order
Amending Agreed Scheduling Order are amended as follows:
Deadline Old New
Schedule Schedule
-- The Defendant's Class April 8, 2022 July 7, 2022
Certification Response
filed with all supporting
evidence, including
the Defendant's expert
disclosures required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
-- Plaintiff's Class May 9, 2022 Aug. 8, 2022
Certification Reply filed
with any rebuttal evidence,
including rebuttal expert
disclosures, if any, for
previously disclosed
experts. The parties
reserve the right to seek
leave to file a sur-reply
or other supplemental
briefing:
-- Simultaneous Cross- June 13, 2022 Sept. 12, 2022
motions for class
decision (1) solely on
the briefs and evidence
filed, (2) oral argument
with the evidence already
files, or (3) evidentiary
hearing with live witness
testimony or depositions
for evidence:
-- Class Certification June 16, 2022 Sept. 14, 2022
Discovery Cutoff:
-- Simultaneous June 20, 2022 Sept. 19, 2022
cross-responses:
All other deadlines, including for additional discovery,
dispositive motions, and pretrial and trial deadlines, will be set
after the motion for class certification is resolved, says Judge
Rankin.
Wake Wind is located in Chicago, Illinois, and is part of the
electric power generation, transmission and distribution industry.
EOG Resources is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration. It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in the
Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sdEGdk at no extra charge.[CC]
ESTEE LAUDER: Law, et al., Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the two class action lawsuits against Estee
Lauder, Inc., et al., ask the Court for an order pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) as follows:
1. certifying the following class:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan, at any time between June 22, 2014 through the date
of judgment (the "Class Period");
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the
certified Class; and
3. appointing Capozzi Adler, P.C. and Edelson Lechtzin LLP,
as Lead Class Counsel.
The two class action lawsuits are captioned as:
"KAR YEE S. LAW, et al., v. ESTEE LAUDER, INC., et al., Case
No. 20-cv-4770-JMF (S.D.N.Y.);" and
"KATHY L. GANDY, et al., v. ESTEE LAUDER, INC., et al., Case
No. 20-cv-4770-JMF (S.D.N.Y.)."
The Plaintiffs include Kar Yee S. Law, Emanuele Caroleo, Palmer
McGuinness, and Kathy L. Gandy.
Estee Lauder is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer
of skincare, makeup, fragrance and hair care products, based in
Midtown Manhattan, New York City.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 1, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L3IC9b at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
EVERGREEN ADULT: Denied Staff Overtime Pay, Meal Breaks, Says Kim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hee Ryang Kim, Kang H. Yi, Chul Zik Kim, Yong Jin Jo and Sam Hyun
Kim, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Evergreen Adult Daycare in NY Inc.,
Evergreen Adult Daycare in Flushing Inc., Evergreen Senior Services
Inc., Evergreen Adult Daycare Center Inc., James Koo, Yangim Kang
and Ben Hur, Case No. 22-cv-00548, (E.D. N.Y., January 30, 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 assisted living facilities under the "Evergreen
Adult Daycare" name where Plaintiffs worked as "adult daycare
service staff." They claim to have worked over 40 hours per
workweek without being paid overtime premiums, sometimes without
meal breaks. They also claim to be denied wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Diana Seo, Esq.
SEO LAW GROUP, PLLC
136-68 Roosevelt Ave., Suite 726
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 500-3340
Email: diana@seolawgroup.com
EXCELLUS BLUE: April 13 Class Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Jones, writing for FingerLakes1.com, reports that a
settlement was reached on Monday, January 24, in a class-action
lawsuit against Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield over a data breach.
The breach happened between 2013 and 2015 and impacted tens of
millions of people prior to its discovery on August 5, 2015.
According to the lawsuit, Excellus, Lifetime Healthcare Inc.,
Lifetime Benefit Solutions Inc., Genesee Region Home Care
Association Inc., MedAmerica Inc., Univera Healthcare and Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association failed to protect customer
information, waited too long to inform customers of the breach, and
failed to inform customers how to protect themselves in its
aftermath.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Excellus companies deny
any wrongdoing and point out that no court has made a determination
that says such, according to Spectrum Local News.
Under the agreement, the companies are required to change certain
business practices as follows:
They must increase and maintain a minimum information security
budget.
The companies must develop a strategy to dispose of records
containing personal identifiable information (PII) or personal
health information (PHI) within one year of original retention
period.
They must make their network more secure by using tools, processes,
and systems for detecting suspicious activity, authenticating
users, responding to/containing security incidents, and document
retention.
Lastly, the companies must engage in an extensive data archiving
program in relation to their databases that maintain PII and PHI.
A judge still has to approve the settlement in a hearing scheduled
for April 13. [GN]
FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Ammons Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON AMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00015-Z (N.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2022) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to secure
redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the lawsuit arises from the Defendant's
engagement in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers
in the process, to promote its services. The Defendant does not
inform and train its personnel engaged in telemarking in the
existence and the use of any internal do not call list pursuant to
the law, says the suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's alleged illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals.
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. operates as an insurance
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
3839 McKinney Avenue Suite 155-2319
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
FEDCAP REHABILITATION: King Wins Conditional Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD KING, on behalf of
himself, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, v. FEDCAP REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., and WILDCAT
SERVICE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01784-VSB-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"non-managerial employees employed by Fedcap and Wildcat
from February 28, 2014 to the present";
2. directing the Defendants to produce in electronic format
the names, titles, dates of employment, last known mailing
addresses, email addresses, and all known telephone
numbers of all Covered Employees to the extent such
information is contained in Defendants' records; and
3. directing the parties to meet and confer with respect to
the content of the proposed notice and, within 30 days of
the Opinion and Order, submit a revised notice along with
a joint letter that (a) details any objections and (b)
provides proposed deadlines for scheduling mediation and
exchanging mediation-related discovery.
Because I find that conditional certification on Plaintiff's
overtime claim is warranted with respect to all non-management
employees of Defendants' businesses, Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification is granted, Judge Broderick says.
The Defendants Fedcap and Wildcat are both nonprofit organizations
focused on recruiting and job placement for individuals previously
involved with the justice system, disconnected youth, and public
assistance recipients.
The Plaintiff King previously worked as an employee of Defendants.
The Defendants hired Plaintiff in or around January 2014 to perform
work for third-party companies under Defendants' job placement
program. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants with different titles
and schedules, mostly as a laborer.
The Plaintiff alleges that, even though he was performing tasks for
different entities through Defendants' programs, "Plaintiff's
payroll, timesheets, paystubs, and other work-related documents
were directly under Defendants' supervision and control, and it was
Defendants that established Plaintiff's wages, pay methods, and
working time."
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing
to pay him his overtime premiums. The Plaintiff also alleges
Defendants forced him and other employees to stay and continue to
work past scheduled shifts without payment for the additional work.
Fedcap is a Manhattan-based not-for-profit organization that
provides vocational training and employment resources to those who
face barriers to employment such as people with all kinds of
disabilities and employment-related barriers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35KlCft at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Rony Guldmann, Esq.
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
New York, New York
The Defendants are represented by:
Adriana Stefanie Kosovych, Esq.
Jeffrey Howard Ruzal, Esq.
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
New York, New York
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 25
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of FirstCash Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FCFS) between February 1, 2018 and November 12, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than March 15, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased FirstCash securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the FirstCash class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2219.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 15, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) FirstCash had made more than
3,600 loans to over 1,000 active-duty members of the military and
their families at usurious interest rates above 36% – and often
exceeding 200% – in violation of the Military Lending Act ("MLA")
and a consent order (the "Order") with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau ("CFPB"); (2) FirstCash had failed to implement
the remedial measures imposed by the Order; (3) FirstCash's
financial results were, in substantial part, the product of
FirstCash's violations of the MLA and the Order; and (4) as a
result, FirstCash was exposed to a material undisclosed risk of
legal, reputational, and financial harm if FirstCash's violations
of the MLA and the Order were ever publicly disclosed. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the FirstCash class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2219.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220125006218/en/
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor [GN]
FOUR SEASONS: Class Certification Hearing Set for Feb. 23
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Van Balderen et al., v.
Four Seasons Miami Employment Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-21842 (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis entered an order
setting hearing on motion to certify Class.
-- Motion hearing set for Feb. 23, 2022.
The nature of suit states other labor litigation.[CC]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Non GMO Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that a class-action lawsuit filed at the end of last year
alleged that Non GMO (genetically modified organism) claims on many
of Gerber's baby food products are false and misleading because the
products contain ingredients derived from genetically modified
crops and protein and/or dairy sources derived from cows raised on
genetically modified feed.
The lawsuit alleges that Non GMO and similar claims (e.g., GMO
free) are understood by consumers in a manner consistent with the
definitions set forth by the Non GMO Project, a non-profit
organization that offers a "Non GMO Project" certification which
requires that the certified foods contain no genetically modified
processes or inputs (e.g., animal food products derived from
animals fed genetically engineered feed). Plaintiff credits the
widespread use of the Non GMO Project label and the educational
outreach efforts of the organization with aligning consumer
expectations with the Non GMO Project Standard.
The case presents interesting issues because "Non GMO" has no
defined regulatory meaning. Disclosure of the presence of
genetically modified material in foods is regulated by USDA's
National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (BE Standard),
which mandates labeling of food that contains bioengineered
material (the BE Standard uses the term "bioengineered" instead of
GMO). However, claims regarding the absence of genetically modified
material are regulated by FDA and, while FDA has issued a guidance
document regarding these voluntary absence of genetically modified
material claims, the document does not define what it means to be
"Non GMO." In fact, the Guidance discourages (but does not
prohibit) the use of the term GMO in favor of terms such as
genetically engineered and further recommends against the use of
"Non GMO" and similar claims because of the potential
substantiation challenges.
Compounding the difficulty of determining the meaning of Non GMO is
the fact that the absence of a required bioengineered disclosure
(under the BE Standard) does not mean that a food is necessarily
"Non GMO." For example, as at issue here, a food sourced from
animals fed genetically modified/GMO feed is not required to be
labeled as bioengineered under the BE Standard, but it would not
meet the Non GMO Project's definition of Non GMO. For our reporting
on a legal challenge to the BE Standard, see our prior post.
We will monitor and report on this case and any other developments
on the meaning of Non GMO and similar claims. [GN]
GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Grants Teva's Bid to Dismiss in Staley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STALEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. GILEAD
SCIENCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss filed in the Walgreen and CVS cases.
The antitrust case was initially brought by indirect purchasers --
also known as end-payor plaintiffs or "EPPs" -- of certain cART
drugs manufactured and/or sold by Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company (BMS) and Janssen Products LP and Janssen R&D Ireland. The
EPPs also sued another drug company, Japan Tobacco Inc., but the
Court granted its motion to dismiss all claims against it. After
the EPPs filed their case, different cases were brought by direct
purchasers -- also known as direct-payor plaintiffs or "DPPs."
Two of the DPP suits are class actions: the named plaintiffs are
FWK Holdings, LLC, and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., and they sued
only Gilead and BMS. They did not sue Teva. See Case Nos. C-20-6793
EMC and C-20-6961 EMC. Two more DPP suits are not class actions:
the plaintiffs are Walgreen Co., et al., and CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et
al., and they have sued Gilead, BMS, and Teva. See Case Nos.
C-21-7374 EMC and C-21-7378 EMC. Another DPP suit -- also not a
class action -- was recently related to these cases -- Case No.
C-21-9202 EMC. The plaintiff there is United HealthCare Services,
Inc. (UHC), and it has sued Gilead and Teva.
Currently pending before the Court is a motion filed by Teva in the
Walgreen and CVS cases. Teva moves to dismiss part of the claims in
those cases on the basis that they are time barred. Specifically,
Teva argues that the Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs -- whom it refers
to as the "Retailers" collectively -- cannot claim for
statute-of-limitations purposes the benefit of the earlier date
that FWK/KPH filed their DPP suits because Teva was not named as a
defendant in the FWK/KPH suits.
I. Factual & Procedural Background
FWK filed its class action complaint against Gilead and BMS on
Sept. 29, 2020, see No. C-20-6793 EMC. KPH filed its class action
complaint against the same defendants soon thereafter -- on Oct. 6,
2020, see No. C-20-6961 EMC. Both FWK and KPH mentioned Teva as a
conspirator in their class action complaints, see, e.g., FWK Compl.
(alleging that Gilead and Teva schemed to delay the entry of Teva's
generics for Viread, Truvada, and Atripla, all of which contain
TDF), but did not sue the company. The EPPs also did not sue Teva.
The Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs did not file their respective
individual suits until approximately a year later, on Sept. 22,
2021, see Nos. C-20-7374 EMC, C-20-7378 EMC. Unlike FWK and KPH,
the Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs did name Teva as a defendant.
Both the Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs included in their complaints
the following paragraph regarding the statute of limitations:
"Plaintiffs are members of the putative class on whose behalf a
class action was filed on September 29, 2020. See FWK Holdings, LLC
v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-06793-EMC (N.D.
Cal.). The filing of that action tolled the statute of limitations
applicable to Plaintiffs' assigned claims [under American Pipe &
Construction Co. v. Utah, 94 S.Ct. 756 (1974)]...."
Teva argues that the Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs cannot rely on the
earlier filed suits and instead can only reach back to the four
years prior to the filing of their own complaint -- i.e., to Sept.
22, 2017 -- since Teva was not a defendant in the FWK/KPH cases. In
response, the Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs contend that "the class
action tolling doctrine extends the applicable limitations period
when a later-filed non-class action names a defendant that was
identified as a co-conspirator but not a defendant in the
earlier-filed class action."
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
complaint to include "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A complaint that
fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
In the instant case, Teva has raised the statute of limitations as
a bar to part of the Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs' claims. An
assertion of a time bar is an affirmative defense, and a plaintiff
ordinarily need not plead on the subject of an anticipated
affirmative defense, District Judge Edward M. Chen opines, citing
Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 902 (9th Cir.
2013).
Here, Judge Chen points out, the statute-of-limitations defense for
damages accruing before Sept. 22, 2017, is obvious. The Walgreen
and CVS plaintiffs' reliance on American Pipe tolling places the
issue before the Court.
B. American Pipe Tolling
In American Pipe, the Supreme Court held that "the commencement of
a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to
all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had
the suit been permitted to continue as a class action," Am. Pipe,
94 S. Ct. at 554. In the case at bar, the Walgreen and CVS
plaintiffs note that they are members of the FWK/KPH actions; thus,
they contend, they are entitled to the benefit of American Pipe,
which, as a practical matter, means that they can reach back four
years from the time that the FWK/KPH class actions were filed.
Teva disagrees; pointing out that it was not a named defendant in
the FWK/KPH actions. The Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs respond that
this is immaterial because it is clear that FWK and KPH alleged
Teva was a co-conspirator with Gilead (regardless of whether one
considers the original complaints or the operative complaint at
Docket No. 5593). The Plaintiffs add that Teva has participated in
the other related lawsuits (both EPP and DPP class actions) by
providing discovery as a third party and thus it should be no
surprise to Teva that it has been pulled into the Walgreen and CVS
plaintiffs' actions as a named defendant.
Judge Chen notes that there is case law to support the Plaintiffs'
position -- specifically, two cases issued by Judge Susan Illston.
See In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 2012 WL 3155693,
at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012); and Tech Data Corp. v. AU Optronics
Corp., 2012 WL 3236065, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012). However,
the Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs have not identified any other
authority to support their position, nor has the Court been able to
find any other authority based on its own independent research.
Furthermore, Judge Illston did not provide any underlying reasoning
or case authority in her decisions.
The Court disagrees with Judge Illston's decisions. In American
Pipe, the Supreme Court allowed for tolling of putative class
members' claims largely in recognition of the fact that a class
action is designed to promote efficiency and a desire to avoid
multiplicity of activity by class members. In particular, the Court
noted that, after the 1966 amendment to Rule 23 -- which was
intended in part to address the problem of multiple interventions
sought by class members pending formal certification -- a class
action is not "'an invitation to joinder' but a truly
representative suit designed to avoid, rather than encourage,
unnecessary filing of repetitious papers and motions."
Accordingly, Judge Chen holds, the filing of a class action
satisfies the purpose of the statute of limitation provision as to
all those who might subsequently participate in the suit, as well
as for the named plaintiffs; to hold otherwise would mean that
class members would have to file earlier individual motions to join
or intervene as parties -- precisely the multiplicity of activity,
which Rule 23 was designed to avoid.
The Court's concern in American Pipe was the plaintiff's side of
the equation, not the defendant's. To be sure, the Supreme Court
did take note of the defendant's interest in ruling that the
limitations period was tolled for unnamed class members -- pointing
out that its holding would not be prejudicial to a defendant. But
that note was a secondary concern, not the core rationale for its
tolling ruling, Judge Chen explains. Thus, American Pipe cannot be
fairly read to toll claims against an unnamed defendant.
In addition, there are independent reasons that counsel against an
extension of American Pipe to an unnamed defendant, even one who is
allegedly a co-conspirator of a named defendant, Judge Chen notes.
This fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis of the sufficiency of
such notice would render application of tolling complicated and
subtle, defying any bright line. In short, for notice purposes,
there is a material difference between being sued and not being
sued.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court grants Teva's motion to dismiss. As to
Teva, the Walgreen and CVS plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the
benefit of the earlier date that FWK/KPH filed their DPP suits
because Teva was not named as a defendant in the FWK/KPH suits.
The Order disposes of Docket No. 740.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yvm2sr8f from Leagle.com.
GOOGLE LLC: Stipulation Setting Class Certification Schedule Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ,
JULIEANNA MUNIZ, ELIZA CAMBAY, SAL CATALDO, EMIR GOENAGA, JULIAN
SANTIAGO, HAROLD NYANJOM, KELLIE NYANJOM, and SUSAN LYNN HARVEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Google LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties asks the Court to enter an order granting their joint
stipulation setting class certificaton briefing schedule and
hearing date as follows:
Action Scheduling Order New Date
-- Close of Fact Discovery: July 13, 2022 No change
-- Initial Expert Witness July 13, 2022 No change
Disclosures:
-- Rebuttal Expert Witness Oct. 28, 2022 No change
Disclosures:
-- Close of Expert Discovery: Dec. 16, 2022 No change
-- Plaintiffs' motion for N/A Jan. 26, 2023
class certification:
-- Google's opposition: N/A March 2, 2023
-- Plaintiffs' reply: N/A March 30, 2023
-- Hearing on Motion for TBD April 13, 2023
Class Certification:
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3of5IQI at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark C. Mao, Esq.
Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293 6858
Facsimile: (415) 999 9695
E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com
brichardson@bsfllp.com
- and -
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
srabin@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
rmcgee@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
Lori C. Arakaki, Esq.
Argemira Florez, Esq.
WILKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
One Front Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 858-7400
Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
E-mail: bhur@willkie.com
sagnolucci@willkie.com
esantacana@willkie.com
larakaki@willkie.com
aflorez@willkie.com
GOTSPACE DATA: Spitalny v. Fiorillo Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark L. Wolf of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts remands to state court the lawsuit entitled SAMUEL
SPITALNY, et al., Plaintiffs v. NICHOLAS FIORILLO, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-12140-MLW (D. Mass.).
Introduction
The case was filed in Suffolk County Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on Dec. 21, 2021, by Plaintiffs
Samuel B. Spitalny, Jacob L. Spitalny, Stephen Quillinan, and S&Q
Data LLC against Defendants Nicholas Fiorillo, Gotspace Data Equity
Fund I LLC, Gotspace Data Equity Fund II LLC, Gotspace Management
LLC, GS Beverly LLC, GS Gloucester LLC, Gotspace Self Storage
Holdings LLC, Gotspace Beverly LLC, and Gotspace Gloucester LLC.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have breached the terms
of a promissory note executed by the parties, including by failing
to repay a $5,150,000 debt owed to the Plaintiffs.
All of the Plaintiffs' claims are based on Massachusetts law. More
specifically, they are for breach of contract (Counts 1 and 2);
enforcement of guaranty (Count 3), which is a contract claim; fraud
and deceit (Count 4); breach of fiduciary duty (Count 5); unjust
enrichment (Count 6); promissory estoppel (Count 7); and requests
for equitable and declaratory relief based on the foregoing alleged
violations of Massachusetts law (Counts 9 and 10).
On Dec. 28, 2021, the Defendants removed the case to federal court
on the basis of alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332.
On Jan. 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion to Remand
(the "Motion to Remand") the case to state court. The Plaintiffs
argue that this Court does not have jurisdiction because diversity
of citizenship does not exist and the complaint raises no claims
under federal law. The Plaintiffs request expedited relief because
they are concerned that the delay associated with the removal of
this case will cause them to fall behind other creditors regarding
judgment security despite having been the first creditor to file a
case against the Defendants. After receiving two extensions of time
to respond, on Jan. 12, 2022, the Defendants submitted an
Opposition to the Motion to Remand, and requested oral argument and
an evidentiary hearing.
The Court finds that a hearing on the Motion to Remand is not
necessary or appropriate. Therefore, the Court is deciding the
Motion to Remand on the parties' submissions.
Analysis
A. Federal Question Jurisdiction
The Plaintiffs assert that federal question jurisdiction does not
exist in this case because the Complaint asserts claims against the
Defendants arising exclusively out of Massachusetts state law. As
explained earlier, Judge Wolf notes, the Complaint on its face does
allege only violations of Massachusetts law.
Judge Wolf finds that the Plaintiffs correctly note that, in the
Notice of Removal, the Defendants assert that federal question
jurisdiction exists because they, as the Plaintiffs in
counterclaim, are seeking damages arising from several causes of
action, including multiple violations of federal laws. However,
Judge Wolf holds and as the Supreme Court has explained, a
defendant cannot, merely by injecting a federal question into an
action that asserts what is plainly a state-law claim, transform
the action into one arising under federal law, thereby, selecting
the forum in which the claim will be litigated, citing Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
The Defendants now also argue that federal question jurisdiction
exists because the facts underlying the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed
and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without
disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and
state judicial responsibilities.
The Defendants do not, however, explain, at least persuasively, how
the Plaintiffs' state-law claims implicate federal law, Judge Wolf
observes. Rather, the Defendants generally assert that the
Plaintiffs' claims implicate federal law because the case involves
hundreds of millions of dollars, interstate commerce, and federally
regulated companies. However, the mere fact that parties are
subject to federal laws and regulations is not sufficient to create
federal question jurisdiction, Judge Wolf points out.
In addition, the Defendants contend that the Complaint implicates
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it is premised on
the collection of an unlawful debt. However, the Defendants'
arguments concerning lawfulness of the debt at issue are best
characterized as defenses, and it is settled law that a case may
not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense,
Judge Wolf opines, citing Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 393.
B. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
Judge Wolf holds that diversity of citizenship does not exist in
this case because it appears that both Plaintiff Stephen Quillinan
and Defendant Nicholas Fiorillo are citizens of Massachusetts. The
Defendants admit that Fiorillo is a resident of Massachusetts. It
is undisputed that Quillinan is also a resident of Massachusetts.
There is no evidence to suggest, let alone prove, that either
Fiorillo or Quillinan does not intend to remain in Massachusetts
indefinitely. Therefore, each is a citizen of Massachusetts.
Accordingly, Judge Wolf holds, the Defendants have not proven that
the complete diversity necessary to create jurisdiction exists.
The Defendants attempt to evade this conclusion by arguing that
this case is in essence a class action that is removable under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), Judge Wolf notes. There is,
however, no factual basis for this assertion. The Complaint in the
case has 183 paragraphs. There are no paragraphs 791, 804, 818, or
828, and paragraphs 1, 2, and 51 do not relate to the matters the
Defendants assert.
Similarly, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have alleged
claims under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute. The
Defendants then assert that CAFA defines class action with
reference to any civil action filed under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of
judicial procedure.
However, the Complaint in the case includes no reference to M.G.L.
c. 93A, Judge Wolf finds. Therefore, the Defendants' argument that
CAFA confers jurisdiction is unmeritorious.
Conclusion and Order
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds the case was improperly
removed because the Defendants have not shown that federal
jurisdiction exists. Therefore, the Motion to Remand is
meritorious.
Accordingly, it is ordered that:
1. The Motion to Remand is allowed; and
2. This case is remanded to the Suffolk Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 13,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mt3mrhar from
Leagle.com.
GURNEY'S INN RESORT: Padilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. Gurney's Inn Resort & Spa LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00498 (E.D. N.Y., January 27, 2022),
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unlawfully
deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York State Labor Law and their
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations and the
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Gurney's Star Island is a restaurant, resort and marina located in
Montauk, NY, where Padilla was employed as supervisor and server
from July 2019 through and including December 1, 2020. Padilla
seeks unpaid overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times his
hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 792-0046
Email: joshua@levinepstein.com
HENKEL CORPORATION: Goldstein Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to D. Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASON GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HENKEL CORPORATION and THRIVING BRANDS
LLC, Case No. 9:21-cv-82111, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut on January 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-00164-AWT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
by manufacturing and selling Right Guard antiperspirant aerosol and
spray products that contain high levels of benzene, a known human
carcinogen.
Henkel Corporation is a chemicals company, with its headquarters at
One Henkel Way, Rocky Hill, Connecticut.
Thriving Brands LLC is a consumer goods company, with its
headquarters at 8170 Corporate Park Drive Suite 143, Cincinnati,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
HERCULES, CA: Bid to Amend Complaint Granted in Vargas Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MANUEL VARGAS, Plaintiff v. CARLOS FREEMAN,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07191-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California issued an order:
(1) discharging order to show cause;
(2) denying the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider; and
(3) granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.
Plaintiff Manuel Vargas moved for reconsideration and motion for
leave to amend, as well as his response to an order to show cause
("OSC") issued on Nov. 12, 2021. Mr. Vargas is a pro se litigant,
who previously sued, inter alia, the City of Hercules on the basis
that it lacked the authority to enforce the California Vehicle Code
and have his car towed. The Court granted the City Defendants'
motion to dismiss (with prejudice) because the City and/or its
employees did have the authority to enforce the Code. Mr. Vargas
now asks the Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss with
prejudice and to allow him to amend his complaint, offering a new
theory of liability.
Factual & Procedural Background
Mr. Vargas, proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit against a
number of entities and persons, including the City of Hercules, its
Police Department, and several employees. The gist of his suit was
that the Defendants lacked the authority to enforce the California
Vehicle Code and have his car towed.
In response to the complaint, the City and two affiliated
Individual Defendants moved to dismiss. The Court granted the
motion, finding that, as a matter of law, the Moving Defendants had
the authority to enforce the California Vehicle Code. The Court,
thus, dismissed the claims against the Moving Defendants, and with
prejudice. The Court also ordered Mr. Vargas to show cause why, in
light of the Court's dismissal order, the remainder of his case
should not be dismissed with prejudice.
Mr. Vargas filed a response to the OSC, along with a motion for
reconsideration and a motion for leave to amend. In his filings,
Mr. Vargas does not contest the Court's determination that the
moving defendants had the authority to enforce the California
Vehicle Code, and he implicitly agrees that this determination
thereby impacts the remainder of his suit as pled. However, he asks
the Court to reconsider its dismissal of the City with prejudice
because he has a new theory of liability against the City. For the
same reason, he asks for leave to amend to plead that new theory of
liability. The Defendants would be the City, plus the towing
company and its owners/operators (collectively, the "Freeman
Defendants"). The gist of the new theory of liability is that the
City police officer improperly cited Mr. Vargas for leaving his car
parked on a highway for 72 or more consecutive hours.
According to Mr. Vargas, his car had not been left parked for more
than 72 hours. In his prior complaint and opposition to the City
Defendants' 12(b)(6) motion, Mr. Vargas never made this "innocence"
claim, Judge Chen notes.
A. Motion for Reconsideration
As an initial matter, the Court considers Mr. Vargas's motion for
reconsideration. This is because the Court previously dismissed
with prejudice the claims against the City (and two employees),
noting that amendment would be futile -- i.e., it was clear that
the City did have authority to enforce the California Vehicle
Code.
Mr. Vargas now is basically asking the Court to revisit the
dismissal with prejudice because he would like to file an amended
complaint against, inter alia, the City, introducing a new theory
of liability (and a new factual predicate as well). Under Civil
Local Rule 7-9, Mr. Vargas would have to show one of the following
in order to be able to file a motion for reconsideration in the
first place: (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a
material difference in fact or law exists from that which was
presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for
which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in
the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for
reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the
interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material facts or
a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) A
manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order.
Judge Chen rules that Mr. Vargas has not done so. For example, Mr.
Vargas has not demonstrated that, in the exercise of reasonable
diligence, he could not have put forth his new theory of liability
(i.e., based on his claim of innocence) prior to the issuance of
the Court's dismissal order.
Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Vargas's motion to reconsider.
The City Defendants, who the Court previously dismissed with
prejudice, remain dismissed with prejudice.
B. Motion to Amend and Response to OSC
Although the Court denies the motion to reconsider, it must still
address Mr. Vargas's response to its OSC, in which it asked him why
the remaining Defendants in the case should not also be dismissed
with prejudice given its ruling that the City did have authority to
enforce the California Vehicle Code. In response, Mr. Vargas has
stated that he can plead new causes of action against the Freeman
Defendants (e.g., violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Due
Process Clause, and the Eighth Amendment, plus parallel state law
claims) -- again based on his claim of innocence.
Based on the response, the Court discharges the OSC. In addition,
the Court will allow Mr. Vargas to amend because, although there
may be weaknesses with his proposed pleading, it cannot say at this
juncture that amendment would be entirely futile.
Mr. Vargas will file his amended complaint by Feb. 11, 2022. He is
permitted to assert claims against the Freeman Defendants only.
Judge Chen points out that the causes of action cannot differ from
those raised in his proposed first amended complaint. Nor can the
factual basis differ from that raised in his proposed first amended
complaint. Finally, Mr. Vargas may assert causes of action on his
behalf only, and not on a class. It would be futile for him to
bring a class action because he is a pro se litigant and has no
counsel of record.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court discharges its OSC, denies the motion
to reconsider, and grants the motion to amend as to the Freeman
Defendants only. As noted, Mr. Vargas must file his amended
complaint by Feb. 11, 2022. Mr. Vargas is forewarned that, if he
does not timely file an amended complaint, then the Clerk of the
Court will automatically dismiss the remainder of this case with
prejudice and close the file in the case.
The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 25-27.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58nhkez5 from Leagle.com.
IL CANTINA: De Jesus Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers
-----------------------------------------------------------
RUFINO DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IL CANTINA LLC d/b/a BISTRO 107 CUCINA
ITALIANA, MUSA VUKAJ, and RESIT VUKAJ, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00424 (D.N.J., January 28, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated restaurant employees at the statutory minimum
wage and overtime rates in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law and Regulations.
The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt dishwasher at Bistro 107
Cucina Italiana from October 2, 2020 through January 2, 2022.
Il Cantina LLC is an owner and operator of an Italian restaurant,
doing business as Bistro 107 Cucina Italiana, located at 107
Moonachie Road, Moonachie, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
200 Park Avenue, l7th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
ILLINOIS: Judge Considers Motion to Block Face Mask Mandates
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hancock, writing for The McDonough County Voice, reports that
a Sangamon County judge is considering a motion to block Illinois
schools from requiring people to wear face masks in classes and
excluding students and staff from school buildings if they've had
close contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19.
Circuit Judge Raylene Grischow heard oral arguments in a class
action lawsuit against 145 school districts that was filed last
year by Greenville attorney Thomas DeVore, who has unsuccessfully
challenged the state's COVID-19 mitigation measures in several
other lawsuits.
In September, DeVore filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order to permit students to continue in-person learning in school.
Attorney General Kwame Raoul's office is defending the districts
and the Illinois Education Association, along with the Illinois
Federation of Teachers, has entered the case as intervenors on
behalf of the teachers they represent.
The cases were originally filed individually in several Illinois
counties but were later consolidated into Sangamon County Circuit
Court.
At issue is whether school districts are violating state law by
implementing orders from Gov. JB Pritzker and guidelines from the
Illinois Department of Public Health and Illinois State Board of
Education to impose certain mitigation measures in order to hold
in-person instruction.
Those measures include requirements that all students, staff and
visitors wear face coverings in school buildings, that students and
staff be excluded from buildings if they test positive for COVID-19
or have been in close contact with someone else who has, and that
school personnel be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing.
In the suit, DeVore argues that exclusions amount to a kind of
"quarantine" and that under the Department of Public Health Act,
schools cannot exclude students for public health concerns without
their parents' consent or a quarantine order from a public health
department.
He also argues that schools have no legal authority to require
vaccinations or the wearing of masks unless a public health
department has issued a quarantine order.
"The plaintiffs have a right to insist the students not be excluded
from school, and denied their right to an in-person education,
except as provided by law," the lawsuit states.
"Quite simply, the defendants are infringing upon the lawful right
of the students, and of their parents or guardians, to be free to
choose for themselves whether mask wearing as a treatment, or type
of modified quarantine, for the purpose of limiting the spread of
an infectious disease, is, absent a court order, appropriate," the
lawsuit states
DeVore has been the attorney in numerous lawsuits representing
businesses and individuals challenging Pritzker's executive orders
during the pandemic. In one, he represented state Sen. Darren
Bailey, R-Xenia, a Republican candidate for governor.
Judge Grischow, however, threw out that case in December 2020,
finding that the governor has the authority to issue multiple,
successive disaster proclamations stemming from one ongoing
disaster.
In a motion to dismiss the case, the Illinois Education Association
argued that masking and exclusions are not "quarantines" and
therefore are not preempted by the Public Health Act. It also
argues that the joint guidance issued by IDPH and ISBE gives school
districts lawful authority to impose mask and exclusion mandates.
In a separate filing, the Illinois Federation of Teachers argued
that the public health interest involved in preventing the spread
of COVID-19 outweighs any individual right of the students and
parents who are challenging the mandates.
"Those parents, students, teachers and staff who are not before the
court have a compelling interest in the enforcement of mitigation
measures that reflect the best judgments of policymakers facing
rapidly changing circumstances," attorneys for the IFT wrote.
The case against the school districts has generated significant
public interest. During a hearing on Jan. 5, Grischow noted in a
journal entry, "the court and the court's receptionist began
receiving emails from outside sources setting forth their position
on the issues being argued in the case."
"The court did not review the emails and turned them over to the
U.S. Marshals office to review for security reasons," Grischow
wrote. "The emails will not be kept or reviewed by the court. Any
opinion rendered in these matters will be based on the law and not
personal opinions." [GN]
ILLINOIS: Parents Express Fear, Concerns Over School Mask Mandates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple parents in the Edwardsville School District expressed
frustration and fear over a letter sent on Wednesday by the
district's superintendent that cautioned that students may need to
return to remote learning.
"Enough with these empty threats and letters. Our kids need
stability, and they need to be in school. And these masks need to
come off their face," said Andrea Painter, a parent in the
district.
"It was quite a surprise to us, as well, because the whole goal of
everyone is to have our students to be in person and learning
together in classrooms," said parent Michelle Stacy.
The reasoning behind this caution comes as a class action lawsuit
filed against 145 school districts with mask mandates last year
could be decided by a Sangamon County judge as early as tomorrow.
Sangamon County includes Springfield and surrounding areas.
Right now, Illinois school districts are required to enforce mask
mandates due to an executive order from Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
"Right now, the mask mandate is issued by the governor through the
executive order, so it impacts all schools across the state. One of
the things the judge could say is that the governor doesn't have
the right to issue an executive order related to masks, but local
school districts do," said Patrick Shelton, superintendent for the
Edwardsville School District. "And in that case, we would go back
to our return to learn plan and we would determine what we want to
do locally."
However, it is unclear if schools will be given that right to
enforce their own mandates, which is why Shelton says the district
is planning for all possible outcomes if they cannot require
masks.
"We're still at a pretty critical point from a county transmission
standpoint, which Is where I think we're approaching this from,"
said Shelton. "I think if our positivity stays high, we've been
encouraged by our health department to really think about students
being in schools unmasked because that's going to cause a health
concern for not only our students but our staff, and our goal is to
make sure they have a safe environment to learn."
The letter to Edwardsville parents said, in part:
"Even though our COVID-19 numbers are trending down, we are still
at a 22% positivity rate in Madison County and have had over 150
positive COVID cases reported the past week in District #7. If the
health and safety of our students and staff cannot be guaranteed
due to the high number of positive COVID cases, there is the
possibility that we may have to implement a district-wide adaptive
pause and move to remote learning. We hope this is not the
scenario, but we want you to know that it is a possibility."
The Triad Community Unit School District also told parents this
month the district may move to remote learning if the court rules
against mask mandates, since they are also listed in the suit. No
one within the district was immediately available to interview
today regarding the lawsuit.
"My biggest concern is my student, my son. His first remote
learning experience was just horrific, to the point where for eight
weeks in one class he didn't have any instruction at all," said
Nate Vuagniaux, whose son is in the Edwardsville School District.
"You're going to have decreased learning, significant learning
loss. . . .you're going to have significant mental health
challenges."
Heather Johnson, an Edwardsville parent, is one of hundreds of
Illinois parents included in the class action lawsuit against
schools. She said it feels retaliatory the district could go back
to remote learning if parents against mask mandates win the suit.
"It is frustrating because I feel like we've taken this time to go
through this whole entire process the correct legal way going
through the court system and filing a lawsuit," said Johnson, "and
for them to threaten us with remote learning. . . .what are our
kids going to think if they see that we went and did this the legal
way?"
Allison Carroll used to have two children in the district but said
she took them out because of the inconsistencies and uncertainties
about keeping kids in school.
"I reached the point where I could not sacrifice any more of my
children's education for this. I couldn't," she said.
"Whether you agree with masks or don't agree with masks...it caused
all kinds of parents to panic," said parent Alicia Downs about the
district's letter. "And probably feel the same way as me, sick to
their stomachs about their kids going remote again."
Some parents question the district's motivation behind the letter
sent to parents, saying they feel like the district is using remote
learning as a threat against the outcome of the lawsuit.
"We would never ever use our students or being in school as a
threat. We simply wanted to make sure that people are aware and
prepared of what could be coming," said Shelton. "We will continue
to consult with [the] Madison County Health Department. . . .but we
also talk to local physicians and try to get a sense of where
things are."
"My biggest concern is that our children are being played like a
political football and that it's just going back and forth for
arbitrary reasons," said Stacy. "I would be happy for them to wear
a mask as long as it keeps them in person."
There is a second school lawsuit moving through Illinois courts
that could potentially remove requirements for testing and masks
among school staff.
The Edwardsville School District is one of 21 districts listed in
that suit. [GN]
INTEL CORP: Faces Meltdown & Spectre Suit Over Alleged CPU Flaws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tyson at tomshardware.com reports that the Meltdown and
Spectre CPU flaws hit the tech news wires at the start of 2018.
However, in the period between Intel's discovery of these flaws,
the previous August, and going public about them in January 2018,
Intel and its partners sold millions of devices to customers. A
class action suit regarding these purchases was granted by Judge
Michael Simon, of the US District Court of Oregon, on Wednesday,
reports The Register.
The major complaint is that the flaws required performance-sapping
updates to patch, so purchasers of systems affected would not get
the performance they paid for, and Intel knew that this would be
the case.
Soon after the Meltdown and Spectre news broke, lawsuits started to
pile up, looking for recompense from Intel, for keeping quiet about
the flaws, while CPUs and systems flew off shelves over the holiday
period. Moreover, Intel continued to release new CPU architectures
that didn't fix the flaws in hardware, such as the Coffee Lake
generation. By mid-February 2018, there were already 32 lawsuits
against Intel, stemming from its side-channel exposing security
misstep. In the same month we tested and compared gaming on PC
systems pre- and post-patching.
Since early 2018, Intel has successfully had the consolidated
multi-district proceeding called "Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation" (3:18-md-02828-SI)
dismissed twice. Now, third time lucky, the plaintiffs have had the
case accepted by Judge Simon. But it is limited to complainants who
purchased computers after September 1, 2017. Previously, the class
action had sought to include purchasers ahead of this date.
"Based on plaintiffs' allegations, it is not clear that Intel had a
countervailing business interest other than profit for delaying
disclosure for as long as it did (through the holiday season), for
downplaying the negative effects of the mitigation, for suppressing
the effects of the mitigation, and for continuing to embargo
further security exploits that affect only Intel processors, wrote
the Judge Simon in his order. "For the seven plaintiffs who
purchased computers after September 1, 2017, they have alleged
enough facts at this stage of the proceedings to survive Intel's
motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a claim."
Settlement May Happen Before Trial
There are still some procedural matters to be completed before this
third attempt to get the class action into the court. The lead
counsel for the plaintiffs told The Register that he and his
clients were pleased that the court had given the green light to
the proceedings "on behalf of consumers and businesses that were
left with slower and less secure computers due to the defects found
in Intel's processors."
Before the case hits the court, Intel might offer to settle, rather
than face a potentially very large damages award to the plaintiffs.
Such an award could easily cancel out, or exceed, Intel's recently
won appeal against the EU antitrust EUR1.06B fine.
CPU market leader Intel and its customers were the worst affected,
with the blue team's x86 processors vulnerable to both Meltdown and
Spectre flaws. AMD and Arm architectures weren't impacted so badly,
with AMD users (for example) only suffering from the Spectre
vulnerabilities. [GN]
IRONMAN PIZZA INC: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Sharp Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Sharp, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Ironman Pizza, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00113 (N.D. Ala., January 27, 2022), seeks minimum wages,
final injunctive and/or declaratory relief, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Defendants own and operate Papa John's Pizza franchise stores where
Sharp worked as a delivery driver. Defendants allegedly took a tip
credit from Sharp when he was making deliveries and made him use
his own car for deliveries. Plaintiff claims that the delivery fee
he gets is not enough to cover his vehicular expenses. He also
claims that he occasionally worked hours over 40 in a week, and in
these weeks he did not receive a sufficient overtime premium
because of the unreimbursed mileage expenses. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Erby J. Fischer, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN BIRMINGHAM, PLLC
2317 3rd Avenue North; Ste. 102
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (659) 204-6364
Fax: (659) 204-6389
E-mail: efischer@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 North Orange Avenue, 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 204-2170
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
JPavlos@forthepeople.com
JP MORGAN: Class Cert OK'd for Settlement w/ Morgan Stanley
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case
No.1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
entered an order granting conditional class certification for
purposes of class action settlement with Morgan Stanley.
1. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court certifies a Settlement
Class consisting of:
"all Persons (including both natural persons and entities)
who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise
had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the
period January 1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), provided that, if
Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified
class in this Action in or through any subsequent amended
complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement,
the defined Settlement Class in this Order and the
Settlement Agreement shall be expanded so as to be
coterminous with such expansion."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and
any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any
Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant, and the United States Government. Investment
Vehicles are not to be excluded from the Settlement Class
solely on the basis of being deemed to be Defendants or
affiliates, subsidiaries, parents or agents of Defendants
or controlled by Defendants or affiliates, subsidiaries,
parents or agents of Defendants. However, to the extent
that any Defendant or any entity that might be deemed to
be an affiliate, subsidiary, parent or agent thereof (i)
managed or advised, and (ii) directly or indirectly held a
beneficial interest in, said Investment Vehicle during the
Settlement Class Period, that beneficial interest in the
Investment Vehicle is excluded from the Settlement Class.
2. The Court appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel to such
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement.
3. The Court appoints Citibank, N.A. as Escrow Agent for
purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement
Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the
establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified
settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
4. The Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and OCERS will serve as
representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of
the Settlement.
5. The timing, plan, and forms of the Class Notice to the
Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing
before this Court to consider any member(s) of the
Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the
Settlement and to consider the fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement
Agreement shall all be determined by separate order of
this Court.
6. At a later date, Class Counsel shall submit for the
Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the
Settlement Funds.
7. This civil action was commenced after February 18, 2005.
The Court directs Morgan Stanley to notify the appropriate
Federal and State officials under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, 281 J.S.C. section 1715 ("CAFA").
Counsel for Morgan Stanley shall, at or before the
Fairness Hearing, file with the Court a notice regarding
its compliance with CAFA.
8. The Court orders Morgan Stanley to produce documents to
the Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely
to the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in
Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement.
The parties to the stipulation and agreement of settlement as to
Defendants Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Australia Limited
dated October 1, 2021 entered into by Representative Plaintiffs and
Morgan Stanley in the above-referenced action, having previously
applied for an order conditionally certifying a Settlement Class as
to Morgan Stanley Settlement on December 10, 2021; Representative
Plaintiffs and Morgan Stanley having executed an Amendment to the
Settlement Agreement dated January 13, 2022.
The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK,N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS,
S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V.,RBS GROUP
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING
GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA,
MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.,
TULLE'TT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-50.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gmjxmg at no extra charge.[CC]
JP MORGAN: Class Cert OK'd for Settlement with Westpac
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case
No.1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
entered an order granting conditional class certification for
purposes of class action settlement with Westpac Banking
Corporation.
1. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court certifies a Settlement
Class consisting of:
"all Persons (including both natural persons and entities)
who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise
had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the
period January 1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), provided that, if
Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified
class in this Action in or through any subsequent amended
complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement,
the defined Settlement Class in this Order and the
Settlement Agreement shall be expanded so as to be
coterminous with such expansion."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and
any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any
Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant, and the United States Government. Investment
Vehicles are not to be excluded from the Settlement Class
solely on the basis of being deemed to be Defendants or
affiliates, subsidiaries, parents or agents of Defendants
or controlled by Defendants or affiliates, subsidiaries,
parents or agents of Defendants. However, to the extent
that any Defendant or any entity that might be deemed to
be an affiliate, subsidiary, parent or agent thereof (i)
managed or advised, and (ii) directly or indirectly held a
beneficial interest in, said Investment Vehicle during the
Settlement Class Period, that beneficial interest in the
Investment Vehicle is excluded from the Settlement Class.
2. The Court appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel to such
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement.
3. The Court appoints Citibank, N.A. as Escrow Agent for
purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement
Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the
establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified
settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
4. The Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and OCERS will serve as
representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of
the Settlement.
5. The timing, plan, and forms of the Class Notice to the
Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing
before this Court to consider any member(s) of the
Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the
Settlement and to consider the fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement
Agreement shall all be determined by separate order of
this Court.
6. At a later date, Class Counsel shall submit for the
Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the
Settlement Funds.
7. All proceedings in the Action as to Westpac, other than
proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed
Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further
order of this Court.
8. The Court hereby orders Westpac to produce documents to
the Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely
to the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in
Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement.
The parties to the stipulation and agreement of Settlement as to
Defendant Westpac Banking Corporation dated March 1, 2021 entered
into by Representative Plaintiffs' and Westpac in the
above-entitled action.
The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS,
S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING
GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA,
MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.,
TULLE'TT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-50.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L2uEEy at no extra charge.[CC]
JP MORGAN: Court Grants Class Cert. for Settlement with ANZ
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case
No.1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
entered an order granting conditional class certification for
purposes of class action settlement with Australia and New Zealand
Banking Group Ltd.
1. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court certifies a Settlement
Class consisting of:
"all Persons (including both natural persons and entities)
who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise
had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the
period January 1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), provided that, if
Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified
class in this Action in or through any subsequent amended
complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement,
the defined Settlement Class in this Order and the
Settlement Agreement shall be expanded so as to be
coterminous with such expansion."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and
any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any
Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant, and the United States Government. Investment
Vehicles are not to be excluded from the Settlement Class
solely on the basis of being deemed to be Defendants or
affiliates, subsidiaries, parents or agents of Defendants
or controlled by Defendants or affiliates, subsidiaries,
parents or agents of Defendants. However, to the extent
that any Defendant or any entity that might be deemed to
be an affiliate, subsidiary, parent or agent thereof (i)
managed or advised, and (ii) directly or indirectly held a
beneficial interest in, said Investment Vehicle during the
Settlement Class Period, that beneficial interest in the
Investment Vehicle is excluded from the Settlement Class.
2. The Court appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel to such
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement.
3. The Court appoints Citibank, N.A. as Escrow Agent for
purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement
Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the
establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified
settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
4. The Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and OCERS will serve as
representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of
the Settlement.
5. The timing, plan, and forms of the Class Notice to the
Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing
before this Court to consider any member(s) of the
Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the
Settlement and to consider the fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement
Agreement shall all be determined by separate order of
this Court.
6. At a later date, Class Counsel shall submit for the
Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the
Settlement Funds.
7. This civil action was commenced after February 18, 2005.
The Court directs ANZ to notify the appropriate Federal
and State officials under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, 28 U.S.C. section 1715 ("CAFA"). Counsel for ANZ
shall, at or before the Fairness Hearing, file with the
Court proof of compliance with CAFA.
8. The Court orders ANZ to produce documents to the
Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely to
the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in
Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement.
This action comes before the Court on Representative Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Motion for Conditional Class Certification and on the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to Defendant Australia
and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. ("ANZ") dated December 10, 2021
entered into by Representative Plaintiffs and ANZ in the
above-entitled action.
The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS,
S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING
GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA,
MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.,
TULLE'TT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-50.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HlpEc8 at no extra charge.[CC]
JP MORGAN: Court Grants Class Cert. for Settlement with CBA
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case
No.1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
entered an order granting conditional class certification for
purposes of class action settlement with Commonwealth Bank of
Australia ("CBA").
1. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court certifies a Settlement
Class consisting of:
"all Persons (including both natural persons and entities)
who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise
had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the
period January 1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), provided that, if
Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified
class in this Action in or through any subsequent amended
complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement,
the defined Settlement Class in this Order and the
Settlement Agreement shall be expanded so as to be
coterminous with such expansion."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and
any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any
Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant, and the United States Government. Investment
Vehicles are not to be excluded from the Settlement Class
solely on the basis of being deemed to be Defendants or
affiliates, subsidiaries, parents or agents of Defendants
or controlled by Defendants or affiliates, subsidiaries,
parents or agents of Defendants. However, to the extent
that any Defendant or any entity that might be deemed to
be an affiliate, subsidiary, parent or agent thereof (i)
managed or advised, and (ii) directly or indirectly held a
beneficial interest in, said Investment Vehicle during the
Settlement Class Period, that beneficial interest in the
Investment Vehicle is excluded from the Settlement Class.
2. The Court appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel to such
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement.
3. The Court appoints Citibank, N.A. as Escrow Agent for
purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement
Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the
establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified
settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
4. The Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and OCERS will serve as
representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of
the Settlement.
5. The timing, plan, and forms of the Class Notice to the
Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing
before this Court to consider any member(s) of the
Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the
Settlement and to consider the fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement
Agreement shall all be determined by separate order of
this Court.
6. At a later date, Class Counsel shall submit for the
Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the
Settlement Funds.
7. This civil action was commenced after February 18, 2005.
The Court directs CBA to notify the appropriate Federal
and State officials under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, 28 U.S,C, section 1715 ("CAFA"). Counsel for CBA
shall, at or before the Fairness Hearing, file with the
Court proof of compliance with CAFA.
8. The Court hereby orders CBA to produce documents to the
Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely to
the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in
Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement.
This putative class action comes before the Court on Representative
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Conditional Class Certification
for Purposes of Class Action Settlement with Commonwealth Bank of
Australia and on the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to
Defendant CBA dated December 10, 2021 entered into by
Representative Plaintiffs and CBA in the above-entitled action.
The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA
BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS
N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA
BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH
BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING
GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA,
MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.,
TULLE'TT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-50.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ggfU6T at no extra charge.[CC]
JP MORGAN: Dennis Wins Conditional Cert. for Settlement Purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case
No.1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
entered an order granting conditional class certification for
purposes of class action settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co., and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
1. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court certifies a Settlement
Class consisting of:
"all Persons (including both natural persons and entities)
who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise
had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the
period January 1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), provided that, if
Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified
class in this Action in or through any subsequent amended
complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement,
the defined Settlement Class in this Order and the
Settlement Agreement shall be expanded so as to be
coterminous with such expansion."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and
any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any
Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant, and the United States Government. Investment
Vehicles are not to be excluded from the Settlement Class
solely on the basis of being deemed to be Defendants or
affiliates, subsidiaries, parents or agents of Defendants
or controlled by Defendants or affiliates, subsidiaries,
parents or agents of Defendants. However, to the extent
that any Defendant or any entity that might be deemed to
be an affiliate, subsidiary, parent or agent thereof (i)
managed or advised, and (ii) directly or indirectly held a
beneficial interest in, said Investment Vehicle during the
Settlement Class Period, that beneficial interest in the
Investment Vehicle is excluded from the Settlement Class.
2. The Court appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel to such
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement.
3. The Court appoints Citibank, N.A. as Escrow Agent for
purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement
Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the
establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified
settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
4. The Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and OCERS will serve as
representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of
the Settlement.
5. The timing, plan, and forms of the Class Notice to the
Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing
before this Court to consider any member(s) of the
Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the
Settlement and to consider the fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement
Agreement shall all be determined by separate order of
this Court.
6. At a later date, Class Counsel shall submit for the
Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the
Settlement Funds.
7. All proceedings in the Action as to JPMorgan, other than
proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed
Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, are hereby stayed and suspended until further
order of this Court.
8. Counsel for JPMorgan shall, at or before the hearing set
to consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of
the Settlement and final approval of the Settlement, file
with the Court proof of compliance with the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. section 1715 ("CAFA").
The parties to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to
Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. dated
November 20, 2018 entered into by Representative Plaintiffs) and
JPMorgan in the above-entitled action.
The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK,N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS,
S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V.,RBS GROUP
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING
GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA,
MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.,
TULLE'TT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-50.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IXZ0q8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Sevier School Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEVIER 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-00580 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit alleges.
Sevier School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 180 East 600 North in Richfield, Utah.
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: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarette, Tooele County Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOOELE COUNTY 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-00581 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.
Tooele County School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 92 Lodestone Way in Tooele, Utah.
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: Millard School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLARD 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-00577 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 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.
Millard School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 285 East 450 North in Delta, Utah.
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: Oregon School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
OREGON 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-00584 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.
Oregon School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 123 East Grove Street in Oregon, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Salt Lake Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign in Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00578 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.
Salt Lake City School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 400 East 100 South in Salt Lake City, Utah.
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
KROGER CO: Joint Bid to Extend Class Certification Deadlines Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, DONNA JUEL,
RICK VENEMAN, PAUL RUGGLES, ROBERT ANDERSON, ARLENE JOHNSTON, HOLLY
SIMONE, KATHLEEN ZACH, MICHAEL TEEGARDEN, CAROLYN ESPINOZA, DENISE
CONROY, individually and on, behalf of other customers, v. THE
KROGER CO., dba FRED MEYER, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-AC (D. Or.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Class
Certification Fact Discovery and Motion for Class Certification
deadlines in the Court's December 14, 2021.
Specifically, the parties move to extend the deadline for the
completion of Class Certification Fact Discovery from February 23,
2022, to a date 30 days after the resolution of Plaintiffs' "Motion
for Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Plaintiff's Claims without
Prejudice" and "Motion for Protective Order from Notices of
Deposition of Withdrawing Plaintiffs;" and to extend the deadline
for the Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Class Certification from
February 28, 2022, to a date 60 days after the resolution of
Plaintiffs' Motions.
The parties also stipulate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a) that
Defendant may take more than ten depositions as part of Class
Certification Fact Discovery if the Court denies Plaintiffs'
Motions.
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IZR9bn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel J. Nichols, Esq.
HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN LLP
15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 250
Portland, OR 97224
Telephone: (503) 334-0611
E-mail: dan@hbclawyers.com
- and -
Michael Fuller, Esq.
OLSENDAINES
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 222-2000
E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com
- and -
Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
Young Walgenkim, Esq.
Telephone: (503) 383-1496
E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com
young@hansonwalgenkim.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin H. Kono, Esq.
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97201-5610
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com
- and -
Kevin H. Kono, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97201-5610
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com
- and -
Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 757-8016
E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com
- and -
Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
James H. Moon, Esq.
Peter Bae, Esq.
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
E-mail: jharper@dwt.com
jamesmoon@dwt.com
peterbae@dwt.com
LEXI INDUSTRIES: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Sergio Abdulio Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lexi Industries LLC and Robert
Joles, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00420, (D. N.J., January 28,
2022), seeks to recover damages for violations of the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff
also seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.
Defendants operate as "Rob's Carpet and Flooring" where Hernandez
worked as a warehouse worker. He claims to have worked in excess of
40 hours per week without overtime premium, spread-of-hours premium
and denied accurate wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Denied Discovery in Electric Vehicle Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that as lead counsel in an Ohio
federal court securities fraud class action against electric
vehicle company Lordstown Motors Corp, Labaton Sucharow tried --
and failed -- to get early discovery before any ruling on
Lordstown's motion to dismiss the case.
So Labaton went to Delaware Chancery Court, where Lordstown is
enmeshed in two shareholder derivative cases, with petitions asking
Chancery Court judges to order the disclosure of inside information
redacted from the public version of the derivative complaints.
The tactic is already a success. Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn
rejected Lordstown's motion to maintain confidentiality for some of
the documents cited in a derivative suit accusing Lordstown board
members of breaching their duties by approving false disclosures
about, among other things, the company's development of a saleable
electric vehicle.
Labaton is still waiting for Vice Chancellor Lori Will to decide
whether to order the disclosure of an unredacted complaint in the
second case, which alleges that sponsors and board members of the
special purpose acquisition company DiamondPeak Holdings Corp
breached their duties by failing to conduct an adequate
investigation of Lordstown before agreeing to acquire the company.
But as you would expect, the shareholder firm wasted no time
telling Will about Zurn's decision to release the unredacted
complaint in the parallel derivative case.
I can't say whether information from the Chancery Court complaints
will ultimately make a difference in the securities class action in
federal court in Youngstown, Ohio. Labaton first tried to get ahold
of the unredacted Delaware complaints before the deadline for its
brief opposing Lordstown's motion to dismiss the Ohio class action.
Unfortunately for the shareholder firm, Zurn's ruling came too
late: Labaton filed the dismissal opposition brief on Jan. 17. And
if the shareholder class action survives dismissal, Labaton's
Delaware win could be superfluous, since class action plaintiffs
will be entitled to their own discovery.
Nevertheless, it's worth looking at Labaton's play for Delaware
derivative documents to bolster the related securities class action
- and, of course, at the (so far unavailing) opposition mounted by
Lordstown's lawyers at BakerHostetler. Delaware plaintiffs are
increasingly likely to obtain corporate books and records before
filing Chancery Court lawsuits, which means their complaints may
contain confidential information that's otherwise unavailable to
plaintiffs' lawyers in the preliminary stages of securities class
actions asserting similar claims. It makes good sense for lead
counsel in shareholder class actions to wring every bit of
information they can from related Delaware cases.
Lordstown and BakerHostetler urged Zurn and Will not to let Labaton
get away with what they called an end-run around the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, which precludes plaintiffs in
federal shareholder class actions from obtaining discovery before
their cases have survived defense dismissal motions.
The company's Delaware briefs requesting confidentiality in the
lawsuit against its board members and the complaint against
DiamondPeak insiders cite different explanations for why particular
information in each case merits confidentiality. But both briefs
include warnings that Labaton's sole motive is to mine the
unredacted complaints for information to use in the shareholder
class action.
Countenancing such a tactic, Lordstown said, would contradict the
public policy Congress advanced when lawmakers restricted discovery
in the preliminary stages of securities class actions. It would
also, Lordstown argued, undermine the purpose of Delaware's
books-and-records statute, Section 220 of the state's corporate
code, because companies rely on confidentiality agreements when
they turn over internal corporate records.
Labaton's petition for disclosure of documents produced under a
confidentiality order "is nothing more than an attempt to
improperly derive discovery vicariously," Lordstown claimed.
"Ordering disclosure of the redacted Information would be repugnant
to the purposes of both the [Private Securities Litigation] Reform
Act and Section 220 and would prejudice Lordstown's rights in the
securities action."
Labaton, of course, disputed Lordstown's characterization in its
briefs opposing the company's motions to retain redactions. In
adopting a discovery bar in securities class actions, the firm
said, Congress was worried about shareholders weaponizing discovery
costs to extract nuisance settlements. That policy concern, Labaton
said, is irrelevant to its petitions to unseal the Delaware
complaints. In fact, Labaton argued, the discovery stay in
federal-court class actions makes it all the more important that
shareholders obtain information through other means, including
access to court documents filed in other jurisdictions.
The shareholder firm said the key question is not its motivation
but the public right of access to court materials. Shareholders,
after all, are members of the public, Labaton said. Delaware law
requires parties to show good cause for redactions. Labaton argued
that the keen public interest in Lordstown, which disclosed last
year that it is under investigation by federal authorities, weighs
heavily against confidentiality in the Delaware complaints.
Zurn agreed in her four-paragraph order denying Lordstown's motion
to retain redactions. The redacted information, she said, "goes to
the nature of the dispute, and the press has already shown a public
interest." Lordstown's vague predictions of competitive harm, she
said, did not outweigh the public's right of access to the disputed
corporate records.
The judge was equally unimpressed with Lordstown's policy arguments
about circumventing the discovery stay in federal-court securities
class actions. The redacted material sought by Labaton "is not
tantamount to discovery," she said, "and the policies supporting a
PLSRA stay are not undermined by this court fulfilling its mandate
for public access."
I emailed Carol Villegas and Christine Fox of Labaton but didn't
hear back. Lordstown counsel Douglas Greene of BakerHostetler also
didn't respond to my email.
As I mentioned, there's no ruling yet on Lordstown's motion to
retain redactions in the DiamondPeak derivative suit. The vice
chancellor in that case may have a different view of Labaton's
tactic. But for now, it looks like good strategy. Shareholder
lawyers, take note. [GN]
MARATHON DIGITAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Meta Materials, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MMAT), NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: NRXP, NRXPW),
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ; MARA), and KE Holdings
(NYSE: BEKE). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ; MARA)
Class Period: October 30, 2020 - November 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 15, 2022
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
Beowulf Joint Venture, as it related to the Hardin Facility,
implicated potential regulatory violations, including U.S.
securities law violations; (ii) as a result, the Beowulf Joint
Venture subjected Marathon to a heightened risk of regulatory
scrutiny; (iii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's business and commercial
prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On November 15, 2021, Marathon disclosed that "the Company and
certain of its executives received a subpoena to produce documents
and communications concerning the Hardin, Montana data center
facility[,]" and advised that "the SEC may be investigating whether
or not there may have been any violations of the federal securities
law."
On this news, Marathon's stock price fell $20.52 per share, or
27.03%, to close at $55.40 per share on November 15, 2021.
For more information on the Marathon Digital class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MARA
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B.
Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com
[GN]
MATCH GROUP: Deadline for Discrimination Settlement Claims Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
As if the online dating game doesn't make you feel bad enough.
Imagine being 29+ (gasp!) and have America's largest dating app
treat you like you're over the hill.
So opposite of the "senior" discount, Tinder had been charging
users in California who were 29 and older twice as much for certain
subscriptions as younger users. An age discrimination suit was
filed and Tinder agreed to a settlement in 2019.
If you're one of those Tinder old folks done wrong, you have until
Feb. 9 to file your claim and get $50 if you meet the requirements.
About 8 million people in the U.S. use the dating app, and in
states other than California, those higher subscription rates still
stand.
Of course, there are fine print details and we've got them.
Tinder Age Discrimination Lawsuit
The lawsuit alleged that Tinder broke several age discrimination
laws specific to California when it charged a higher price to
consumers over the age of 29 for the subscription services Tinder
Plus and Tinder Gold.
The price of those subscriptions was $9.99 for users 29 years of
age and younger and $19.99 for those over the age of 29. The age
upcharge violates the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
Tinder denied the claim and refused to accept legal liability,
claiming there is no legal basis that class members should be
considered eligible for a relief payout.
However, an agreement was reached in 2019 and payouts will begin
once the deadline for filing claims is reached.
Tinder Age Discrimination Settlement Details
Certain Tinder app users from California may be in line to claim a
cash settlement as part of the class action lawsuit brought against
the Texas-based company.
By "certain," the lawsuit specifies eligible class members as:
-- Tinder users who subscribed to the Tinder Plus or Tinder Gold
service upgrades between March 2, 2015 and March 1, 2019, and;
-- were at least 29 years old when they subscribed.
During that time period, Tinder charged users who were at least 29
years old a higher subscription fee for those two services. That's
age discrimination, and against the law, at least in California.
To join the class action lawsuit, claims must be submitted no later
than Feb. 9, 2022.
Every class member who files a claim will receive up to $50
depending on how much money is left from the $5.2 million
settlement after attorney's fees and other legal costs are paid.
The $50 amount also depends on how many class members file a claim
for compensation.
Class members will also receive two Tinder-specific app upgrades -
70 Super Likes and one Boost. The value of those items is estimated
at $118.30. Those awards are not dependent on the number of class
members who join the suit.
Class Action Suits Help Consumers
Class action lawsuits are a popular vehicle for consumers to
receive payment for illegal transactions conducted by American
firms. It allows class members who meet filing standards to join in
lawsuits without being required to hire their own lawyer or pay any
court filing or litigation fees.
In September 2021, a $181 million price-fixing class action lawsuit
was brought against several fresh and frozen chicken producers. If
you bought chicken to be cooked at home between 2012 and 2020,
which might just be every adult citizen in the country except
vegetarians, you could qualify for a small payout. And, you have
until Dec. 31, 2022, to file a claim.
While class action complainants may occasionally receive
notifications by mail that they can join a class action lawsuit,
often consumers are unaware they may be eligible for remuneration.
Top Class Actions operates a website which updates current existing
class action lawsuits that you may be eligible to join. The Penny
Hoarder also publishes monthly settlement deadlines.
Kent McDill is a veteran journalist who has specialized in personal
finance topics since 2013. He is a contributor to The Penny
Hoarder.
This was originally published on The Penny Hoarder, a personal
finance website that empowers millions of readers nationwide to
make smart decisions with their money through actionable and
inspirational advice, and resources about how to make, save and
manage money. [GN]
MDL 2548: $28.2MM in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Gold Futures Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE: COMMODITY EXCHANGE,
INC., GOLD FUTURES AND OPTIONS TRADING LITIGATION, MDL No.
14-MD-2548 (VEC), No. 14-MC-2548 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses, and awards attorneys' fees equal to $28.2 million.
District Judge Valerie E. Caproni notes that the Order incorporates
by reference the definitions in each Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, which were previously filed with the Court, and all
capitalized terms used, but not defined, will have the same
meanings as set forth in the Stipulations.
Notice of Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Motion was given to
potential members of the Settlement Class in a reasonable manner,
and such Notice complies with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, due process requirements, and any other applicable law,
as it constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to persons
and entities entitled thereto. Members of the Settlement Class were
given the opportunity to object to Fee and Expense Motion in
compliance with Rule 23.
The Court awards attorneys' fees equal to $28.2 million and
interest on such attorneys' fees at the same rate as the earnings
in the Settlement Funds, accruing from the inception of each such
Fund. Co-Lead Counsel is authorized to allocate these awards with
other firms that assisted them in a manner in which, in Co-Lead
Counsel's judgment, reflects the contributions of such counsel to
the prosecution and settlement of the Action.
In making this award of fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, the
Court has considered and found that:
(a) the Settlements have created a fund of $102 million in
cash, and numerous members of the Settlement Class who
submit, or have submitted, valid Proof of Claim and
Release forms will benefit from the Settlements created by
Co-Lead Counsel;
(b) The fee sought by Co-Lead Counsel is fair and reasonable;
(c) Over 18,000 copies of the Notice were disseminated to
potential members of the Settlement Class as reasonably
identified in Defendants' data, as well as many more sent
in an abundance of caution in response to requests by
intermediaries;
(d) The Notice indicates that Co-Lead Counsel would move for
attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $28.2 million
and for costs, charges and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $11 million, plus interest on both amounts, and no
objections to the fees or expenses were filed by members
of the Settlement Class;
(e) Co-Lead Counsel has pursued the litigation and achieved
the Settlements with skill, perseverance, and diligent
advocacy, as reflected by the positive reception of the
Settlement Agreements by the Settlement Class;
(f) Co-Lead Counsel has expended substantial time and effort
pursuing the litigation on behalf of the Settlement Class;
(g) the litigation involves complex factual and legal issues
and, in the absence of the settlements, would involve
lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain;
(h) had Co-Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlements, there
would remain a significant risk that the Settlement Class
may have recovered less or nothing from Settling
Defendants;
(i) public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses in class action litigation;
and
(j) the amount of attorneys' fees is appropriate to the
specific circumstances of this Action, and consistent with
awards in similar cases.
The fee award is independent of the Court's consideration of the
fairness, reasonability, and adequacy of the Settlements and is
also independent of the Court's consideration of the Plan of
Allocation. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's
approval regarding the fee award will in no way disturb or affect
the finality of the final judgments entered with respect to the
Settlements, or any expense award.
The fee award and interest awarded here will constitute a final
order and will be payable to co-lead counsel from the Settlement
Funds upon entry of final judgments related to the Deutsche Bank
and HSBC Settlements.
In the event that any of the Settlements is terminated or does not
become Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance
with the terms of that particular Stipulation, this Order will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided in that Stipulation
and will be vacated in accordance with that Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/24mknz9u from Leagle.com.
MDL 2548: Court Awards $8-Mil. for Expenses in Gold Futures Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE: COMMODITY EXCHANGE,
INC., GOLD FUTURES AND OPTIONS TRADING LITIGATION, MDL No.
14-MD-2548 (VEC), No. 14-MC-2548 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants Co-Lead
Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, and awards
$8,027,282.81 in payment of litigation expenses.
District Judge Valerie E. Caproni notes that this Order
incorporates by reference the definitions in each Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, which were previously filed with the
Court, and all capitalized terms used, but not defined here, will
have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulations.
Notice of Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Motion was given to
potential members of the Settlement Class in a reasonable manner,
and such Notice complies with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, due process requirements, and any other applicable law,
as it constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to persons
and entities entitled thereto. Members of the Settlement Class were
given the opportunity to object to Fee and Expense Motion in
compliance with Rule 23.
The Fee and Expense Motion is granted with respect to litigation
expenses.
The Court awards $8,027,282.81 in payment of litigation expenses
and interest on such expenses at the same rate as the earnings in
the Settlement Funds, accruing from the inception of each such
Fund. Co-Lead Counsel is authorized to allocate this award with
other firms that assisted them in a manner in which, in Co-Lead
Counsel's judgment, reflects the contributions of such counsel to
the prosecution and settlement of the Action.
In making this award of expenses to Co-Lead Counsel, the Court has
considered and found that:
(a) the Settlements have created a fund of $102 million in
cash, and numerous members of the Settlement Class who
submit, or have submitted, valid Proof of Claim and
Release forms will benefit from the Settlements created by
Co-Lead Counsel;
(b) The expenses sought by Co-Lead Counsel are reasonable and
were necessarily incurred;
(c) Over 18,000 copies of the Notice were disseminated to
potential members of the Settlement Class as reasonably
identified in Defendants' data, as well as many more sent
in an abundance of caution in response to requests by
intermediaries;
(d) The Notice indicates that Co-Lead Counsel would move for
attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $28.2 million
and for costs, charges and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $11 million, plus interest on both amounts, and no
objections to the fees or expenses were filed by members
of the Settlement Class;
(e) public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable
expenses in class action litigation; and
(f) the amount of expenses paid is appropriate to the specific
circumstances of the Action, and consistent with awards
in similar cases.
Judge Caproni explains that this expense award is independent of
the Court's consideration of the fairness, reasonability, and
adequacy of the Settlements, and is independent of the Court's
consideration of the Plan of Allocation. Any appeal or any
challenge affecting this Court's approval regarding the expense
award will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the final
judgments entered with respect to the Settlements, or any fee
award.
The expense award and interest awarded here will constitute a final
order and will be payable to co-lead counsel from the Settlement
Funds upon entry of final judgments related to the Deutsche Bank
and HSBC Settlements.
In the event that any of the Settlements is terminated or does not
become Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance
with the terms of that particular Stipulation, this Order will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided in that Stipulation
and will be vacated in accordance with that Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yuh6c4u9 from Leagle.com.
MEDICAL WEIGHT: Hanyzkiewicz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTA HANYZKIEWICZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS OF AMERICA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00516-WFK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28,
2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, http://www.medicalweightlosscentersofamerica.com/,and
seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers.
Medical Weight Loss Centers of America, LLC provides medical weight
loss treatments via telemedicine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Grants Hazdovac Leave to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CORY HAZDOVAC, Plaintiff v. MERCEDES-BENZ
USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00377-RS (N.D. Cal.), the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California issued an
order granting leave to amend complaint.
Introduction
The motion concerns an attempt to broaden a putative class action.
The lawsuit avers violations of the California emissions code by
Mercedes-Benz USA. Under the California Code of Regulations ("CCR")
automobile manufacturers must include certain "high-priced
emissions-related" parts in a 7 year/70,000-mile warranty.
Plaintiff Cory Hazdovac replaced several parts in her Mercedes. She
asserts the parts are both high-priced and emissions-related, but
Mercedes misclassified them, using the wrong standards in each
instance.
Originally, the Plaintiff framed her lawsuit as covering all parts
that were misclassified. In response to a motion to dismiss, she
amended her complaint to focus on the parts she bought, but still
sought an injunction requiring Mercedes to identify and cover "all
other parts" which should have been covered.
The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") also noted the California
Emissions System Warranties applied to customers in other states,
so Hazdovac might seek to expand the classes to cover those states
as well. She now seeks to expand her suit to cover all parts
Mercedes should have covered, in all states in which the warranties
apply. The deadline to amend without leave has passed, but Hazdovac
has shown good cause. For the reasons set out, leave to amend is
granted.
Background
The CCR requires that emissions-related parts must have a 5
year/50,000-mile warranty, and if they are high priced, a more
generous 7 year/70,000-mile warranty. To determine whether a part
is high priced, a formula is used based on the part's replacement
cost. For instance, for model year 2020 vehicles, the part must
cost at least $640. Manufacturers submit lists of parts to the
California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), which then approves or
modifies them. The manufacturers give the warranties to purchasers.
Hazdovac avers Mercedes uses prices quoted to dealers, not
consumers as she says the law requires, so Mercedes misclassifies
parts as not being high priced. She also claims Mercedes uses the
wrong standard for determining whether a part is emissions
related.
A previous motion to dismiss was denied because the Complaint
adequately alleged the parts were high priced and contained a
plausible claim that the parts were emissions related. The order
characterized Hazdovac's claims as potentially stretching the
definition of "emissions related" to cover every part. Hazdovac's
theory depended on the supposition that in the event any of the
three identified parts failed, a chain reaction would result
leading to engine overheating, parts breaking, and needless
combustion. In a similar vein, Hazdovac argued that if any part's
failure caused the check engine light to illuminate, it would be
emissions related (in a footnote, the order suggested this
proposition was not supported by the statute.)
Ms. Hazdovac seeks two amendments. First, new averments that
Mercedes used the wrong standards for parts other than the three
parts she bought. Second, averments adding new classes. Mercedes'
warranty promised that purchasers in other states would be covered
by the California Emissions Warranty, so Hazdovac seeks to obtain
relief for those purchasers as well.
In discovery, Hazdovac obtained a declaration from CARB. CARB
declares a "warranted part" under the California Emissions Warranty
is "any components that can or are required to illuminate the check
engine light in the event of a malfunction, even if the primary
function of the component is not emissions control." A specific
type of warranted part is an emissions-related part, as defined in
the CCR.
Ms. Hazdovac interprets this to mean CARB supports her position
that anything which causes the check engine light to turn on is an
emissions-related part. CARB's declaration also appears to support
her contention that the correct cost for determining high-priced
status is the cost of parts and labor charged to a consumer, not to
the manufacturer. Mercedes' representative testified it uses the
amount manufacturers pay to get cars repaired under warranty, an
amount lower than the amount customers pay. Thus, the proposed
averments adequately allege some parts are incorrectly designated
as not high-priced.
Discussion
A. Rule 16
The deadline for amending the complaint without leave of the court
has passed, so Hazdovac must satisfy Rule 16's good cause standard.
She does not address Rule 16 in her motion or reply; Mercedes
argues that alone is reason to deny her motion. However, Hazdovac's
arguments about good cause are clear, even if not framed explicitly
as being about Rule 16. In short, Hazdovac believes she preserved
her claims about other parts; she only seeks amendment now to make
it exceedingly clear they are covered by this lawsuit.
Mercedes argues Hazdovac cannot assert claims she abandoned.
Originally, Hazdovac asserted claims on behalf of all owners and
lessees of any Mercedes vehicles for repairs that should have been
covered. Hazdovac then amended her complaint in response to a
motion to dismiss, limiting the case to the three parts she
personally had to replace, in certain model years of C-class
vehicles, the vehicle type she owns.
Crucially, however, Hazdovac maintained the request for injunctive
relief requiring Mercedes to identify all other parts that should
have been covered, Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg notes. This
action, therefore, has always included a component relating to
Mercedes systematically misclassifying parts beyond the three she
owns. Even accepting Mercedes' argument that the lawsuit has
narrowed, Hazdovac was sufficiently diligent in complying with the
scheduling order. She promptly conducted discovery and sought
amendment in adequate time. Mercedes' insistence that Hazdovac
cannot assert allegations she knew about but chose not to pursue
seems inconsistent with its claim that Hazdovac abandoned those
claims. In any event, Judge Seeborg holds, Hazdovac has preserved
these claims throughout the litigation.
B. Rule 15
The standard for amendment under Rule 15 is one of "extreme
liberality," Judge Seeborg notes, citing Eminence Capital, LLC v.
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). The factors that
must be considered include bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, and
futility. There is a presumption in favor of granting leave to
amend unless there is prejudice or a strong showing of the other
factors.
Mercedes does not argue Hazdovac brings this motion in bad faith.
It also does not discuss undue delay in precisely those terms,
arguing instead that Hazdovac cannot re-assert allegations she
abandoned or knew about before. For her part, as to undue delay,
Hazdovac points out she filed the motion shortly after receiving
the transcript of Mercedes' corporate designee, and that discovery
is not yet over. Mercedes focuses on claims of prejudice and
futility.
1. Prejudice
Mercedes says it will be prejudiced because it has proceeded on the
understanding the case was limited to a few parts in one model, and
that the proposed amendments would expand the case unfairly to one
about all parts in all models.
Judge Seeborg finds that this argument is unconvincing. Judge
Seeborg holds that Hazdovac correctly points out that determining
whether those three parts were incorrectly classified will turn on
questions common to Mercedes' approach across all its parts. Judge
Seeborg points out that while the action may become larger, more
complicated, and take longer, that does not amount to unfair
prejudice to Mercedes.
2. Futility
The question of futility in this context is not whether or not a
claim will ultimately succeed, but rather whether or not the claim
makes out a cognizable violation of law, Judge Seeborg notes,
citing Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bur., 701
F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983).
Judge Seeborg holds that Hazdovac's claims satisfy that inquiry.
Thus, Mercedes' arguments about standing need not be discussed in
detail. Suffice it to say Hazdovac proposes a class action, so she
need not own every Mercedes vehicle type.
Mercedes' arguments about whether Hazdovac can bring California
Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act claims on
behalf of non-California putative class members do not clear the
high bar of demonstrating futility, Judge Seeborg opines.
Mercedes also argues the classes are futile because they are
failsafe classes. Judge Seeborg finds that the classes here do not
depend on establishing liability. The classes are clear: anyone who
bought a misclassified part in the specified states.
Finally, Mercedes argues Hazdovac is improperly seeking
reconsideration of a prior ruling. It points to the Court's prior
dismissal of the idea that anything triggering the check engine
light illumination is an emissions related part. Mercedes argues
this is law of the case and Hazdovac should be unable to argue
otherwise, so her proposed amendment is futile. This one statement
was dicta in a footnote, and does not constitute law of the case,
Judge Seeborg holds.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Ms. Hazdovac is granted leave to file
the Second Amended Complaint, which she must do within 20 days of
the date of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mryvdm4r from Leagle.com.
MICHAELS ORGANIZATION: Case Mng't, Sched Deadlines Modified in Lenz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA LENZ, TRACI LENZ,
JASON NORQUIST, AMIE NORQUIST, RYAN MORGAN, GARY ELBON, KAYLA
ELBON, JASON GENRICH, JENNY GENRICH, AMIR COCHRAN, CANDICE COCHRAN,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. THE
MICHAELS ORGANIZATION, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-02950-TPB-AEP
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Anthony E,. Porcelli entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to modify the case Management
and scheduling deadlines as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Reports: June 14, 2022
-- Defendants' Expert Reports: July 14, 2022
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for July 14, 2022
Class Certification:
-- The Defendants' Response/ August 27, 2022
Opposition Certification
Class:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply to Sept. 27, 2022
Defendants' Opposition to
Class Certification
-- Discovery Deadline: Nov. 29, 2022
-- Dispositive Motion Deadline: Dec. 23, 2022
-- Daubert Motion Deadline to: Jan. 6, 2023
-- Trial Term 1: May 2023
The Michaels Organization, LLC provides financial services. The
Company specializes in development, management, construction, and
finance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uocTK3 at no extra charge.[CC]
MICHIGAN: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOES A, B, C, D, E,
F, G, H, MARY DOE and MARY ROE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of the
State of Michigan, and COL. JOSEPH GASPER, Director of the Michigan
State Police, in their official capacities, Case No.
2:22-cv-10209-PDB-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
1. Certifying a "primary class," defined as people who are or
will be subject to registration under Michigan's Sex
Offenders Registration Act (SORA); and name Plaintiffs
John Does A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mary Doe, and Mary Roe
as representatives of the primary class;
2. Certifying a "pre-2011 ex post facto subclass," defined as
members of the primary class who committed the offense(s)
requiring registration before July 1, 2011; and name
Plaintiffs John Does A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Mary Doe, and
Mary Roe as representatives of the pre-2011 ex post facto
subclass;
3. Certifying a "retroactive extension of registration
subclass," defined as members of the primary class who
were retroactively required to register for life as a
result of amendments to SORA; and name Plaintiffs John
Does A, B, C, D, E, G, Mary Doe, and Mary Roe as
representatives of the retroactive extension of
registration subclass;
4. Certifying a "barred from petitioning subclass," defined
as members of the primary class who are ineligible to
petition for removal from the registry and for whom ten or
more years will have elapsed since the date of their
conviction for the registrable offense(s) or from their
release from any period of confinement for that
offense(s), whichever occurred last, and
who (a) have not been convicted of any felony or any
registrable offense since; (b) have successfully
completed their assigned periods of supervised release,
probation, or parole without revocation at any time of
that supervised release, probation, or parole; and (c)
have successfully completed an appropriate sex offender
treatment program, if successful completion of a sex
offender treatment program was a condition of the
registrant's confinement, release, probation, or parole;
and name Plaintiffs John Does A, C, E, F, G, Mary Doe,
and Mary Roe as representatives of the barred from
petitioning subclass;
5. Certifying a "non-sex-offense subclass," defined as
members of the primary class who are or will be subject
to registration for an offense without a sexual component
including convictions for violating M.C.L. sections
750.349, 750.349b, 750.350 or a substantially similar
offense in another jurisdiction; and name Plaintiff John
Doe A as the representative of the non-sex-offense
subclass;
6. Certifying a "plea bargain subclass," defined as members
of the primary class who gave up their right to trial and
pled guilty to a registrable offense in Michigan and who,
as a result of retroactive amendments to SORA, (I) were
retroactively subjected to SORA even though there was no
registration requirement at the time of their plea; or
(ii) had their registration terms retroactively extended
beyond that in effect at the time of their plea; and name
Plaintiffs John Does A, B, C, D, E, and Mary Roe as
representatives of the plea bargain subclass;
7. Certifying a "post-2011 subclass," defined as members of
the primary class who committed the offense(s) requiring
registration on or after July 1, 2011; and name Plaintiff
John Does H as the representative of the post-2011
subclass; and
8. Appointing Plaintiffs' counsel (Miriam Aukerman, Paul
Reingold, and Roshna Bala Keen) as class counsel for this
action Michigan subjects approximately 55,000 people to
Michigan's SORA.
The Plaintiffs contend that the legislature's recent minor
amendments to the law do not resolve the constitutional
deficiencies. Because Defendants are once again acting uniformly in
applying an unconstitutional statute to tens of thousands of
people, this Court should once again grant class certification to
decide the constitutionality of Michigan's registration law.
In Does I, Judge Cleland found that certain provisions of SORA were
unconstitutionally vague or violated the First Amendment. See 101
F. Supp. 3d 672 (E.D. Mich. 2015); 101 F. Supp. 3d 722 (E.D. Mich.
2015). On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that SORA's 2006 and 2011
amendments constituted punishment, and therefore could not be
applied retroactively. Does I, 834 F.3d at 706.
Undeterred by these rulings, the Defendants continued to enforce
the old SORA as written. Shortly after the Sixth Circuit's decision
in Does I, Plaintiff Mary Roe was told that she faced prosecution
under provisions of SORA that the Sixth Circuit and the Eastern
District had already found unconstitutional. Roe was resolved when
the various defendants agreed that they would no longer enforce the
unconstitutional parts of the old SORA against Ms. Roe.
Michigan is a state in the Great Lakes region of the upper
Midwestern United States.
Gretchen Esther Whitmer is an American lawyer and politician
serving as the 49th governor of Michigan since 2019.
The Michigan State Police is the state police agency for the U.S.
state of Michigan. The MSP is a full-service law enforcement
agency, with its sworn members having full police powers
statewide.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IWjHCA
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq.
Rohit Rajan, Esq.
Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FUND OF MICHIGAN
1514 Wealthy SE, Suite 260
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Telephone: (616) 301-0930
E-mail: maukerman@aclumich.org
rrajan@aclumich.org
dkorobkin@aclumich.org
- and -
Paul D. Reingold, Esq.
COOPERATING COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
Univ. of Michigan Law School
802 Legal Research Building
801 Monroe Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
Telephone: (734) 355-0319
E-mail: pdr@umich.edu
- and -
Roshna Bala Keen, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
COOPERATING COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 243-5900
E-mail: roshna@loevy.com
MICHIGAN: Several Unemployment Insurance Claimants File lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Roberts at freep.com reports that several Michigan
unemployment insurance claimants who have received bills from the
state saying they owe money back are suing Michigan's Unemployment
Insurance Agency and its director Julia Dale.
Attorneys David Blanchard and Frances Hollander with the Ann Arbor
law firm Blanchard & Walker said they filed a 37-page class-action
complaint Friday in the Michigan Court of Claims, stating that the
agency acted outside the law by determining claimants aren't
eligible for benefits more than a year after benefits were paid.
"The agency is so clearly not following their own law, they're
acting without jurisdiction, and acting beyond any statutory
authority that they have," Blanchard said in an interview with the
Detroit Free Press.
Nick Assendelft, a spokesperson for Michigan's Unemployment
Insurance Agency, said the agency had no comment on the lawsuit.
John Nevin, a spokesperson for the Michigan Court of Claims, said
he has not seen the lawsuit and it may not be docketed until
Monday.
Blanchard and Hollander are representing claimants Kellie Saunders,
of Royal Oak; Erik Varga, of Gaylord; Lisa Shephard, of Coldwater;
Dawn Davis, of Pinckney, and Jennifer Larke, of Whitmore Lake, all
of whom have been assessed with "overpayments" and billed by the
state for thousands of dollars.
For example, Saunders, a wedding and event photographer, applied
for benefits at the start of the pandemic, and the agency
determined she was eligible for $362 in benefits weekly in April
2020, the lawsuit said. In October 2021, the agency issued a
"notice for redetermination" and said she should have been paid
$160 instead. Saunders was told she was overpaid $14,000.
Another plaintiff, Varga, who worked in the hospitality industry
and was laid off at the start of the pandemic, was told a year ago
that the agency was seeking to collect $17,000 in benefits and that
his federal income tax refund would be withheld, the lawsuit said.
He protested, and despite his pending protest, his 2020 federal tax
refund was garnished. He continues to get overpayment and
garnishment notices even though his protest is still under review.
The lawsuit said the agency is violating the due process rights of
Michigan residents granted under the state constitution by:
-- Undertaking collection activity, which includes seizing tax
refunds, garnishing wages or withholding future benefits, based on
"monetary determinations" issued more than a year after benefits
were paid, which is a violation of the Michigan Employment Security
Act.
-- Seeking recovery of overpayments that's required to be waived.
-- Engaging in collection activity without any final determination
on the merits.
"Those who are just now recovering from financial hardship are
facing unlawful seizure of wages and tax returns without any legal
basis," the lawsuit said.
Blanchard said he has seen other cases of early collection activity
from the agency, while claimants are still appealing or protesting
an agency decision, but added: "It's just gotten to an outrageous
level.
"What's different now is that you can't get a hearing for more than
a year," he said.
At a joint Michigan House and Senate oversight committee hearing in
Lansing earlier this month, Dale said she hoped to provide guidance
to claimants who were retroactively deemed ineligible for benefits
and are being asked to repay by the end of January.
When asked by the Detroit Free Press earlier about the status of
waivers or options for pausing collections for claimants who have
been told they were overpaid, Assendelft said: "We're still working
on next steps and are targeting the end of this month for a final
determination on how we will proceed."
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, halting the garnishment and seizure of
wages, and declaratory relief, which would require the agency to
comply with its statutory and constitutional obligation to issue
redeterminations within a year of the initial determination. [GN]
MISSOURI: Bid for Preliminary Injunction in Bledsoe v. MDOC Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL D. BLEDSOE, Plaintiff v. MISSOURI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00010-JCH (E.D. Mo.), the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied these
motions filed by the Plaintiffs:
(1) motion for preliminary injunction;
(2) motion for appointment of counsel;
(3) motion for leave to amend the complaint to allege a class
action; and
(4) motion for leave and amended motion for preliminary
injunction and memorandum of law in opposition to
Defendant Robert Killian's suggestions and motion for
leave and amended motion for preliminary injunction and
memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants Steven
Pfister, Erin Gould, and Christine Dicus's response to the
Plaintiff's motion.
Background
The Plaintiff brings this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Defendants Robert Killian, Steven
Pfister, E. Gould, and Christine Dicus. The Plaintiff states he is
an African-American man and was convicted of a sexually violent
offense. He is serving a 15-year sentence in the Missouri
Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). On Nov. 26, 2018, the Plaintiff
was enrolled in the Missouri Sexual Offender Program ("MOSOP"). He
alleges that the Defendants racially discriminated against him in
the program and unfairly terminated him from the program on Nov.
12, 2019.
Prior to the Court issuing service on the Defendants, the Plaintiff
filed a motion for preliminary injunction. In his motion, the
Plaintiff requests that the Court orders the Defendants to stop
discriminating in the program, and to allow other group members
especially (other races and/or people of color) to be given and/or
granted equal opportunity to correct their deficiencies, or
'presentation deficiencies,' before being referred to the treatment
team, if they've been in the program longer than (240) days. In
addition, the Plaintiff has filed motions for appointment of
counsel and various motions to amend.
Discussion
(1) The Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of
proving an injunction should issue in the action. Specifically, he
has not demonstrated any threat of irreparable harm or the
likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying claims. The
Plaintiff was terminated from MOSOP nearly two years prior to
filing suit.
District Judge Jean C. Hamilton also finds that the Plaintiff has
not demonstrated a real and immediate threat that he will be
subject to the behavior he seeks to enjoin. Rather, as to himself,
the injunction seeks to remedy a past wrong--his termination from
MOSOP on Nov. 12, 2019. Currently, the Plaintiff is under no threat
of irreparable harm.
To the extent the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of
other group members especially other races and/or people of color,
the Plaintiff's motion must be denied, Judge Hamilton rules. Judge
Hamilton explain that the Plaintiff has no standing to bring claims
on behalf of other prisoners. Furthermore, as the Plaintiff is not
an attorney, he can only plead and conduct his own case.
Additionally, Judge Hamilton finds, the Plaintiff has not met his
burden of showing a probability of success on the merits. The only
allegation before the Court is that the Plaintiff was not allowed
to correct his presentation deficiencies, while other participants
were allowed to correct their presentation deficiencies. The
Plaintiff attributes this to racial discrimination.
In response to the Plaintiff's motion, however, Defendants Pfister,
Gould, and Dicus submitted nearly 254 pages of the Plaintiff's
MOSOP records. These records indicate that the Plaintiff's
termination from MOSOP was not the result of racial discrimination.
Rather, the records show that the Plaintiff did not fully comply
with treatment expectations, he lacked necessary progress, and he
lacked insight into his behaviors.
Although the Plaintiff submits documentation showing he has
successfully completed many mental health group programs and that
he is taking advantage of opportunities for further education in
prison, he has not countered the Defendants' documentation that he
was terminated from MOSOP for failure to comply with treatment
expectations rather than racial discrimination, Judge Hamilton
points out. For this reason, the Court finds he has not met his
burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits.
Because the Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing the threat
of irreparable harm or the probability of success on the merits,
the Court will deny the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction.
(2) The Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel
The Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking appointment of
counsel in this action. Judge Hamilton rules that the motion will
be denied at this time.
The Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at
this time. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that he can adequately
present his claims to the Court and neither the factual nor the
legal issues in the case appear to be complex.
(3) The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Allege a
"Class Action" Lawsuit
The Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking leave of Court to
amend his complaint to state claims on behalf of a class. The
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of people of color, who have
been terminated from MOSOP. He attaches to his motion affidavits of
six other men, who have been terminated from MOSOP, allegedly
because of their race. He seeks to amend his complaint to add class
allegations on behalf of these men.
As discussed with respect to the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction, a prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other
prisoners, Judge Hamilton explains. Because the Plaintiff is not an
attorney, he can only plead and conduct his own case. For this
reason, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint to
allege a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 will be denied.
(4) The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave and Amended Motion for
Preliminary Injunction in Opposition to Defendants' Response to
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
On Nov. 24, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a "motion for leave and
amended motion for preliminary injunction and memorandum of law in
opposition to defendant Killian's suggestions" and "motion for
leave and amended motion for preliminary injunction and memorandum
of law in opposition to defendants Steven Pfister, Erin Gould, and
Christine Dicus's response to plaintiff's motion." Attached to this
filing is the Plaintiff's record of successful completion of many
mental health group programs, a "transition accountability plan,"
and plaintiff's underlying informal resolution request ("IRR") and
appeal.
Although the Plaintiff titles these filings as "motions," in
substance, his filing is a reply brief in support of his motion for
preliminary injunction, Judge Hamilton observes. The Plaintiff's
filing directly addresses the Defendants' responses to his motion
for preliminary injunction.
As such, the Court will consider Document No. 52 as a reply brief
in support of the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. To
the extent his motion seeks to amend his motion for preliminary
injunction, the motion will be denied.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction is denied. It is further ordered that his
motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for an extension
of time to seek appointment of counsel are denied.
The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint to allege a
class action lawsuit is denied.
The Plaintiff's "motion for leave and amended motion for
preliminary injunction and memorandum of law in opposition to
defendant Killian's suggestions" and "motion for leave and amended
motion for preliminary injunction and memorandum of law in
opposition to defendants Steven Pfister, Erin Gould, and Christine
Dicus's response to plaintiff's motion," which the Court construes
as the Plaintiff's reply brief in support of his motion for
preliminary injunction will be denied to the extent it seeks to
amend his motion for preliminary injunction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 13,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8pyk3f from
Leagle.com.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Monopolizes NFL Retail Market, Hibbs Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS HIBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC., NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE PROPERTIES, INC., NFL ENTERPRISES, LLC, ARIZONA
CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, ATLANTA FALCONS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC,
BALTIMORE RAVENS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BUCCANEERS TEAM LLC, BUFFALO
BILLS LLC, CAROLINA PANTHERS, LLC, THE CHICAGO BEARS FOOTBALL CLUB,
INC., CHARGERS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC.,
CLEVELAND BROWNS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, DALLAS COWBOYS FOOTBALL
CLUB, LTD., DETROIT LIONS INC., FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC, GREEN BAY
PACKERS, INC., HOUSTON NFL HOLDINGS, L.P., INDIANAPOLIS COLTS,
INC., JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS LLC, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS FOOTBALL CLUB,
INC., LAS VEGAS RAIDERS FOOTBALL LLC, MIAMI DOLPHINS LTD.,
MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOTBALL LLC, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS LLC, NEW
ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, LLC, NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS INC., NEW
YORK JETS FOOTBALL CLUB, INC. PDB SPORTS, LTD. D/B/A DENVER BRONCOS
FOOTBALL CLUB, THE PHILADELPHIA EAGLES FOOTBALL CLUB INC.,
PITTSBURGH STEELERS SPORTS INC., THE RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY LLC, SAN
FRANCISCO FORTY NINERS II, LLC, TENNESSEE FOOTBALL, INC.,
WASHINGTON FOOTBALL, INC., and FANATICS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00586 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to dominate
the retail market for online sales of National Football League
(NFL)-licensed merchandise. The Defendants' conspiracy consists of
at least four related components: (1) they colluded to boycott
competing retailers who sold NFL Licensed products through
third-party online marketplaces; (2) fill the void by entering into
exclusive dealing arrangements that denied their competitors access
to manufacturers and suppliers; (3) rather than compete with one
another, they entered into anticompetitive licensing agreements to
further reduce competition; and (4) further undermine other
retailers' ability to compete in the online market for NFL Licensed
products by forbidding those retailers from using NFL-related
keywords to advertise or even describe their product offerings.
National Football League, Inc. is an association of professional
football teams in the United States, with its headquarters at 345
Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, New York.
National Football League Properties, Inc. is the representative of
the NFL and its member professional football teams for the
licensing of their trademarks and logos, with its headquarters at
345 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, New York.
NFL Enterprises, LLC is a company that promotes the National
Football League and professional football teams, with its principal
place of business at 280 Park Avenue, New York, New York.
Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC is a professional football team
based in Arizona.
Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC is a professional football team
based in Georgia.
Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership is a professional football
team based in Maryland.
Buccaneers Team LLC is a professional football team based in
Florida.
Buffalo Bills LLC is a professional football team based in New
York.
Carolina Panthers, LLC is a professional football team based in
North Carolina.
The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc. is a professional football
team based in Illinois.
Chargers Football Company, LLC is a professional football team
based in California.
Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. is a professional football team based in
Ohio.
Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC is a professional football
team based in Ohio.
Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd. is a professional football team
based in Texas.
Detroit Lions Inc. is a professional football team based in
Michigan.
Football Northwest LLC is a professional football team based in
Washington.
Green Bay Packers, Inc. is a professional football team based in
Wisconsin.
Houston NFL Holdings, L.P. is a professional football team based in
Texas.
Indianapolis Colts, Inc. is a professional football team based in
Indiana.
Jacksonville Jaguars LLC is a professional football team based in
Florida.
Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc. is a professional football
team based in Missouri.
Las Vegas Raiders Football LLC is a professional football team
based in Nevada.
Miami Dolphins Ltd. is a professional football team based in
Florida.
Minnesota Vikings Football LLC is a professional football team
based in Minnesota.
New England Patriots LLC is a professional football team based in
Massachusetts.
New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC is a professional football team
based in Louisiana.
New York Football Giants Inc. is a professional football team based
in New York, New York.
New York Jets Football Club, Inc. is a professional football team
based in New Jersey.
PDB Sports, Ltd., doing business as Denver Broncos Football Club,
is a professional football team based in Colorado.
The Philadelphia Eagles Football Club Inc. is a professional
football team based in Pennsylvania.
Pittsburgh Steelers Sports Inc. is a professional football team
based in Pennsylvania.
The Rams Football Company LLC is a professional football team based
in California.
San Francisco Forty Niners II, LLC is a professional football team
based in California.
Tennessee Football, Inc. is a professional football team based in
Tennessee.
Washington Football, Inc. is a professional football team based in
Virginia.
Fanatics, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of NFL licensed
products, with its principal place of business at 1 Franklin Pkwy.,
Bldg. 910, San Mateo, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
15615 Alton Parkway
Telephone: (949) 570-5500
Facsimile: (949) 298-7234
E-mail: amp@purdylegal.com
- and –
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
apolk@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
- and –
Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
Spencer Cox, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 577-3977
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com
scox@burnscharest.com
- and –
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
- and –
Patrick Murphree, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
E-mail: pmurphree@burnscharest.com
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Settlement in Kovich Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI KOVICH, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds, V. NATIONWIDE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and CODY MCCONNELL, Case No.
3:20-cv-00518 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers
entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement,
certifying the settlement class, and providing for notice to the
settlement class.
-- Settlement Class: This action is hereby conditionally and
temporarily certified as a class action for settlement
purposes only on behalf of the following class:
Any person or entity insured by Defendant Nationwide
Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("Nationwide") under
an insurance policy covering real property located in West
Virginia, and for whom on or after April 13, 2010,
Nationwide withheld depreciation in connection with the
cost of repairing and/or replacing the real property.
Any person who excludes himself or herself from the class
shall not be a member of the Settlement Class.
-- Class Representatives. The Court designates Plaintiff
Jenni Kovich as Settlement Class Representative.
-- Class Counsel: The Court appoints Brent K. Kesner and the
law firm of Kesner & Kesner, PLLC, and Robert V. Berthold,
Jr. of the law firm of Berthold Law Firm, PLLC as
Settlement Class Counsel.
-- Preliminary Approval of Settlement. The proposed
Settlement Agreement entered into by the Parties
establishes the method of calculation of settlement
payments that have been made to class members, allows
members to opt out, and is subject to the Parties' right
to withdraw from the Settlement unless certain agreed
conditions are met.
Nationwide offers insurance, retirement and investing products that
protect your many sides.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GnCiWF at no extra charge.[CC]
NAVISTAR INT'L: Settles Shy Class Suit Over Retirement Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action settlement has been reached to settle disputes among
parties in Shy v. Navistar International Corp., Case No.
3:92-cv-0333-WHR (S.D. Ohio) regarding Navistar's employment and
retirement benefits. The Court granted preliminary approval of this
settlement January 10, 2022. The settlement would eliminate the
right to bring additional lawsuits concerning the current disputes
in exchange for cash and other consideration, estimated at a value
of $742 million plus interest, that would be used to increase the
healthcare benefits received by union and salaried retirees of
Navistar. Details about the settlement and related matters can be
found at www.navistar.com/shysettlement. Retiree inquiries can be
made toll-free by calling 1-877-353-5100 or emailing
retireehotline@navistar.com.
The settlement class is defined as:
Present participants (including spouses and dependents) and those
eligible to become participants, whether upon retirement or
election (including eligible spouses and dependents), in the
Navistar International Transportation Corp. Retiree Health Benefit
and Life Insurance Plan (n/k/a the Navistar, Inc. Retiree Health
and Life Insurance Plan). This includes all eligible present
retirees, individuals eligible upon retirement or election, and
participating, eligible, or future-eligible spouses and dependents
in the Navistar International Transportation Corp. Retiree Health
Benefit Program (n/k/a the Navistar, Inc. Retiree Health Benefit
Program), the Navistar International Transportation Corp. Retiree
Life Insurance Program (n/k/a the Navistar, Inc. Retiree Life
Insurance Program), and the Navistar International Transportation
Corp. Retiree Supplemental Benefit Program (n/k/a the Navistar,
Inc. Retiree Supplemental Benefit Program).
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Walter H. Rice on June
9, 2022, at 10 a.m. EST in the Walter H. Rice Federal Building and
U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 200 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio
45402, or as otherwise ordered by the Court ("Fairness Hearing")
to: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate; (ii) determine whether the above class
definition should be adopted for the Settlement; (iii) determine
whether Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses
should be approved; (iv) determine whether certain provisions of
the agreement resulting from the Shy case should be modified to
effect the Settlement; (v) consider any Class Member's timely
objection to the Settlement or to the motion for attorneys' fees
and expenses; and (vi) consider any other matters that may properly
be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement.
Members of the settlement class do not need to attend the Fairness
Hearing.
If you are a member of the settlement class, your rights may be
affected. For further details about the settlement and related
matters visit www.navistar.com/shysettlement. Inquiries can be made
toll-free by calling 1-877-353-5100 or emailing
retireehotline@navistar.com. [GN]
NETFLIX INC: Averts Class Action Suit Over Teen Suicides
--------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Netflix has
defeated a class action lawsuit that blamed it for a rise in teen
suicides following the release of the series 13 Reasons Why.
Oakland federal judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers first ruled her court
was the proper forum - upsetting plaintiffs lawyers who appealed
the decision - and on Jan. 12 she granted Netflix's motion to
dismiss.
The company used an anti-SLAPP defense, which allows defendants to
cut off cases at an early stage if their conduct is protected by
free speech (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation).
"13 Reasons Why is not the first work to tell a story about teen
suicide. The subject has been explored in countless literary works,
motion pictures, and TV shows -- everything from Romeo and Juliet
to Dead Poets Society," the company's motion to dismiss says.
Rogers agreed and told lawyers at the Digital Justice Foundation
and Hamilton Law of Las Vegas to determine if amending their
complaint was a possibility. They said no and are likely to appeal
Rogers' ruling.
"Plaintiffs' efforts to oppose the anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds
that the complaint does not concern the content or dissemination of
the show do not persuade and are inconsistent with the
allegations," Rogers wrote.
She also ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring wrongful
death claims on behalf of their sibling and that the negligence and
strict liability claims being made were barred by the statute of
limitations.
Netflix released 13 Reasons Why in March 2017 as a series
adaptation of Jay Asher's novel. The show involves a high school
student who leaves behind 13 cassette tapes that reveal the 13
reasons why Hannah Baker killed herself.
The lawsuit says H.B. watched the show before her suicide on April
28, 2017. It blames Netflix for prioritizing a market dominance of
young viewers over their mental well-being.
The complaint says the National Institute of Mental Health
associated a 29% increase in child-suicide rate in April 2017 with
13 Reasons Why -- "a child-suicide spike that could have been
avoided had Netflix taken basic moral responsibilities to warn and
to not target its most vulnerable viewers," the complaint says.
Netflix is represented by Blanca Young of Munger, Tolles & Olson.
"Plaintiffs' allegation that Netflix was warned there was a
'potential for suicide-contagion effects upon impressionable
viewers' does not establish the requisite 'high degree of
foreseeability' to give rise to a legal duty," the motion to
dismiss said.
"Suicide is a 'too idiosyncratic' reaction to a television series
for Netflix -- or, for that matter, any other distributor of
suicide-related content -- to have reasonably anticipated." [GN]
NEW DIRECTIONS: $290K Class Settlement in Krott FLSA Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Western Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to
Approve FLSA Settlement in the lawsuit captioned Maria Krott,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NEW DIRECTIONS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, L.L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00915-DGK (W.D. Mo.).
The case arises out of the Plaintiffs' employment with the
Defendant New Directions Behavioral Health, L.L.C., a behavioral
health organization that provides benefit determinations for
healthcare plans. Plaintiff Maria Krott alleges that the Defendant
failed to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
to Approve FLSA Settlement. The Court previously directed
additional briefing concerning certain issues in the Settlement
Agreement and Order.
Background
On Nov. 13, 2019, Plaintiff Krott filed a complaint against her
previous employer, Defendant New Directions Behavioral Health,
L.L.C., on behalf of herself and others. In her complaint, she
alleged that she performed utilization review work on the
Defendant's behalf, that the Defendant paid her a salary and
classified her as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA,
and that she had worked more than forty hours in one or more
individual work workweeks during the prior three years. The
Plaintiff alleged that she was not exempt from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA, and that she is, therefore, due unpaid
overtime wages at a rate of one and a half times her regular rate
of pay.
The Defendant denied that Plaintiff Krott was due overtime wages.
The parties mediated the case initially on June 1, 2020, but were
unable to reach a settlement. Plaintiff Krott then moved to
conditionally certify the class. The Court granted her motion on
Sept. 10, 2020.
The class was defined as: All individuals employed by the Defendant
in non-management job titles containing the term "Utilization
Manager" in the prior three years who were paid on a salary basis
and classified as exempt from overtime compensation.
After a number of individuals joined the class, the parties were
able to come to a final settlement agreement covering both FLSA
claims and parallel state law claims. The class consists of 32
individuals, including named Plaintiff Krott.
The agreement provides for a gross settlement amount of $290,000,
from which named Plaintiff Krott is to receive $5,000, opt-in
Plaintiff Gibbons is to receive $2,500, the settlement
administrator is to receive $4,750, the Plaintiff's Counsel will
receive $146,392.89 in attorneys' fees and $3,607.11 for expenses,
and the rest ($132,5000) will be paid out to the class members. In
addition, the Defendant will pay the employer's share of applicable
payroll taxes on the wage portion of the settlement payments made
to each class member.
Discussion
The Court finds the Settlement satisfies all of the prerequisites
for approval: (i) the parties have shown a bona fide wage and hour
dispute exists, and (ii) the Settlement is fair and equitable to
all parties.
Among other things, District Judge Greg Kays finds that the
Settlement is the product of an arms-length negotiations, and the
Court finds no indicia of collusion.
The Plaintiffs calculate that the Settlement provides each class
member with 91% of the overtime wages they are owed, while avoiding
the risk of losing on a motion to decertify, at trial, or on
appeal. Thus, the Court agrees that the present value of the
Settlement outweighs the potential recovery after continued
litigation. Hence, the Court approves the Settlement.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Supplemental Suggestions in
support of the requested award of attorneys' fees and expenses,
including the billing records. Frankly, the fact that the results
achieved here are modest and the attorneys are being paid more than
half (60%) of the total settlement amount ($150,000 of the $290,000
settlement)--fees which the attorneys negotiated contemporaneously
with their clients' FLSA claims--is a red flag for the Court, Judge
Kays states.
That said, the record demonstrates the Plaintiff's Counsel has
extensive experience in FLSA cases; they have spent a reasonable
amount of time working on this case; and the result the attorneys
obtained here is at least minimally sufficient, Judge Kays says. It
is at least minimally sufficient because the caselaw goes both ways
here--it is quite conceivable that additional litigation could have
resulted in the class receiving nothing--and thirty-two plaintiffs
will be collectively receiving $140,000, which is more than a de
minimis amount.
Under the circumstances, the Court cannot say that an award of
$150,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses is unreasonable.
Consequently, to the extent any Court approval is needed for the
award of attorneys' fees and expenses, it is given.
Conclusion
Because the relevant factors support approval, the Court grants the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Approve FLSA Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mryc8thj from Leagle.com.
NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION: Joseph Consumer Suit Goes to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BASTIN JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION SOLUTIONS, INC.
d/b/a HOMEWISEDOCS.COM, Case No. 21-CA-9811, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on January 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-00239 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Chapters
720 and 501 of the Florida Statutes by charging unreasonable sums
for estoppel certificates, exceeding the $250 maximum established
by Chapter 720.
NextLevel Association Solutions, Inc., doing business as
HomeWiseDocs.com, is a real estate company, with its principal
place of business in Reno, Washoe County, Nevada. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric J. Partlow, Esq.
Michael A. Kolcun, Esq.
ADAMS AND REESE LLP
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4000
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 402-2880
Facsimile: (813) 402-2887
Email: Eric.Partlow@arlaw.com
Michael.Kolcun@arlaw.com
- and –
Philip M. Oliss, Esq.
Alexander W. Prunka, Esq.
JONES DAY
North Point
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 586-3939
Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
E-mail: poliss@jonesday.com
aprunka@jonesday.com
NRI LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRI, LLC. The case is
styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. NRI, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00824 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
NRI, LLC is located in Nashville, Tennessee and is part of the
Other Amusement and Recreation Industries Industry.[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
NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("NRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NRXP;
NRXPW) filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
NRx securities between June 1, 2021 and November 4, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased the shares of NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., you may,
no later than March 21, 2022, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in NRx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
NRx is a clinical-stage small molecule pharmaceutical company that
develops various therapeutics for the treatment of central nervous
system disorders and life-threatening pulmonary diseases. The
Company's products include, among others, ZYESAMI, an
investigational pre-commercial drug for COVID-19 related
respiratory failure.
In June 2021, NRx announced that it filed an application with U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") requesting Emergency Use
Authorization ("EUA") for ZYESAMI (Aviptadil-acetate) to treat
critically ill COVID-19 patients suffering with respiratory failure
(the "ZYESAMI EUA Application").
On November 4, 2021, NRx issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has declined to issue an [EUA] for ZYESAMI(R)(aviptadil).
The FDA stated that it was unable to issue the EUA at this time due
to insufficient data regarding the known and potential benefits of
the medicine and the known and potential risks of ZYESAMI in
patients suffering from Critical COVID-19 with respiratory
failure."
On this news, NRx's stock price fell $2.27 per share, or 25.45%, to
close at $6.65 per share on November 5, 2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
NURSEIO LLC: Does not Properly Pay Travel Nurses, Lockett Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Lockett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nurseio, LLC, and Nurseio II, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-00158 (D. Ariz., January 28, 2022), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants'
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendant is a healthcare staffing firm where Lockett was employed
as a travel nurse from March of 2021 until November of 2021. She
claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor, regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime
premiums. She claims to have received incentive bonuses which was
not included in the computation of overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
ONTARIO: Suit Launched on Behalf of Psychiatric Hospital Patients
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP has commenced a proposed class action against the
Ontario government and the former medical and unit directors of the
former St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital ("St. Thomas") relating to
their alleged systemic abuses of involuntary patients between the
years 1976 and 1988.
St. Thomas was a government operated psychiatric facility located
in St. Thomas, Ontario. The claim alleges that, from 1976 to 1988,
involuntary patients detained in the medium secure forensic unit of
St. Thomas were subjected to an abusive and punitive patient-run
program with no medical merit.
The proposed class action, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges that this "treatment" program, run with the
government of Ontario's knowledge for over a decade, was initially
developed and implemented by patients detained in the maximum
security Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre
Penetanguishene, including those with histories of sexual
violence.
As part of this program, male patients were transferred from Oak
Ridge to St. Thomas and placed in charge of the control, treatment,
and punishment of female patients. These female patients included
teenagers such as the proposed representative plaintiff, who was
seventeen years old at the time of her admission at St. Thomas.
The claim alleges that Ontario and the former medical and unit
directors of St. Thomas who oversaw the program were systemically
negligent and breached their fiduciary duties and the patients'
Charter rights by implementing this unethical, harmful and
medically meritless patient-run program.
The claims have not yet been proven in court. For information about
this proposed class action please contact Golnaz Nayerahmadi
(gnayerahmadi@rochongenova.com) or Matthew Taylor
(mataylor@rochongenova.com) at (416) 363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292.
Rochon Genova LLP
121 Richmond St. W, Suite 900
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2K1 [GN]
OREGON: Reyes Action Stayed Pending Resolution in Maney Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN MANUEL REYES v. SUSAN
WASHBURN et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01175-SB (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion to stay pending resolution of class certification in the
Maney case.
The Court concludes that staying this litigation will conserve
judicial resources by avoiding duplicative litigation, and a stay
will not unduly prejudice Reyes.
On April 6, 2020, seven AICs (the "Maney Plaintiffs") housed at
four ODOC institutions filed a civil rights action under Section
1983 against Governor Brown and several ODOC officials (together,
the "Maney Defendants"). Maney et al. v. Brown et al., Case No
6:20-cv-00570-SB ("Maney"). The Maney Plaintiffs allege that the
Maney Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to their health
and safety by failing adequately to protect them from COVID-19
through social distancing, testing, sanitizing, medical treatment,
masking, and vaccines.
Mr. Reyes, a self-represented litigant in the custody of the Oregon
Department of Corrections ("ODOC"), filed this civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Susan Washburn, Superintendent
of the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution ("EOCI"), and
several ODOC employees (together, "Defendants"), alleging
violations of his First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights.
The Oregon Department of Corrections is the agency of the U.S.
state of Oregon charged with managing a system of 14 state prisons
since its creation by the state legislature in 1987.
EOCI is one of 14 state prisons in Oregon, United States. The
prison is located in Pendleton, Oregon.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ukqn9C at no extra charge.[CC]
OSF HEALTHCARE: Moretz Files ADA Suit in C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OSF Healthcare
System. The case is styled as Melissa Moretz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. OSF Healthcare System, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01017-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OSF HealthCare -- https://www.osfhealthcare.org/ -- is an
integrated health care network serving patients of all ages across
Illinois and Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Colella, Esq.
Kyle Alan Shamberg, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: nickc@lcllp.com
kyle@lcllp.com
OUTDOORSY INC: Resnick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outdoorsy, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Zach Resnick, individually and on behalf
of a, class of similarly situated persons and the general public,
as applicable v. Outdoorsy, Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
CGC22597719 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 19, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Contract/Warranty."
Outdoorsy -- https://www.outdoorsy.com/ -- is the #1 most trusted
RV rental marketplace in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Robert Sidran, Esq.
SIDRAN LAW CORP.
2010 Crow Canyon Pl, Ste. 100
San Ramon, CA 94583-1344
Phone: 925-529-1350
Fax: 925-529-1350
Email: dsidran@sidranlaw.com
PAPA MURPHY'S: Monteverde & Associates Discloses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND ALL BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF PAPA MURPHY'S
HOLDINGS, INC. ("PAPA MURPHY'S") COMMON STOCK WHO PURCHASED, SOLD,
OR HELD SUCH STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING, April 25,
2019, the date of the Tender Offer and the date of filing of the
Schedule 14D-9, through and including May 22, 2019, the date the
Tender Offer expired, INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS, TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS,
ESTATES, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFEREES.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma
Division, that a hearing will be held on May 2, 2022, at 11:00
a.m., before the Honorable Benjamin H. Settle. Settlement Class
Members should check the Settlement Class website in advance of the
Final Approval Hearing to determine whether that hearing will occur
in person at the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma Division, 1717 Pacific Avenue,
Tacoma, WA 98402, or via a remote link. The hearing will be held
for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement
of the Litigation for $2.4 million should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice and releasing the Released
Claims against Defendants and Defendants' Released Parties; (3)
whether final certification of the Settlement Class should be
granted; (4) whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement
Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and
(5) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses, and any award to Lead Plaintiff
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec78u-4(a)(4) should be approved.
IF YOU PURCHASED, SOLD, OR HELD PAPA MURPHY'S COMMON STOCK DURING
THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING APRIL 25, 2019, THROUGH AND INCLUDING
MAY 22, 2019 (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE
RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO
YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF PAPA MURPHY'S COMMON STOCK DURING
THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you
may obtain copies by writing to Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, 1-866-742-4955, or on
the Internet at www.rg2claims.com/papamurphy.html. If you are a
Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail (postmarked no later than May 28, 2022), or online
at www.rg2claims.com/papamurphy.html no later than May 28, 2022,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
If you purchased, sold, or held Papa Murphy's common stock during
the Settlement Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the
Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than April 6, 2022, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of
the Settlement Class who do not timely and validly request
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement. [GN]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Mateer Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph D. Mateer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00740, (S.D. N.Y., January 28, 2022),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation at a rate
of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York labor laws.
Peloton is an exercise equipment and media company where Mateer was
employed as non-exempt, inside sales representative from
approximately October 2017 until approximately June 11, 2021. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
3208 Clinton Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel/Fax: (216) 815-9500
Email: jbristol@crklaw.com
- and -
J.R. Howell, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF J.R. HOWELL
1223 Wilshire Boulevard
P.O. Box 543
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Phone: (202) 650-8867
Email: jrhowell@jrhlegalstrategies.com
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Sued for Using Names, Personas without Consent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Mackey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-00342 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2022), is brought to seek
damages, an injunction, and additional relief from Defendant who
used the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and personas to
promote paid subscriptions to the Classmates website without
consent in violation of Illinois' right of publicity statute, and
Illinois common law prohibiting unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
private individuals who have no relationship with PeopleConnect.
The Plaintiff and the Class have never used Classmates.com, nor did
they provide their names, photographs, or any other personal
information to PeopleConnect. Plaintiff was seriously distressed to
discover that PeopleConnect is using decades-old photographs of the
Plaintiff and the Class as children to advertise paid subscriptions
to Classmates.com. The Plaintiff and the Class did not consent to
PeopleConnect using their names, photographs, and personas to
promote Classmates.com subscriptions.
PeopleConnect advertises and promotes paid subscriptions to the
Classmates website by displaying the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
names and photographs on advertising webpages published on the
Internet. PeopleConnect displays the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
names and photographs in low-resolution and volume-limited formats
for free. Users who click to see high-resolution versions, or who
attempt to view more than two low-resolution photographs, receive a
message saying they must purchase a paid subscription.
By using the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and photographs
as children in its advertising, PeopleConnect knowingly mislead the
public into believing Plaintiff and Class Members are
Classmates.com users who willingly shared their personal
information with Classmates.com and endorse Classmates.com's
subscription product. In fact, Plaintiff and the Class have no
relationship with PeopleConnect, had no knowledge their photographs
as minors were being used, and do not approve of PeopleConnect's
use of their names, photographs, and personas to advertise
Classmates.com subscriptions and products. Classmates' website and
advertisements fail to disclose that Plaintiffs and the Class are
unaffiliated with PeopleConnect and Classmates.com.
By these actions, PeopleConnect has violated the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act, and Illinois common law prohibiting unjust retaining
of a benefit to a plaintiff's detriment. Plaintiff and the Class
have suffered injury through the unlawful taking of their valuable
intellectual property; through the invasion of their privacy rights
protected by statute and common law; through PeopleConnect's
unlawful profiting from its exploitation of their names, personas,
and personal information; and through harm to peace of mind. The
Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to relief including statutory
damages, disgorgement of profits, royalties for the use of their
personas, restitution of the value of their personas, an injunction
prohibiting PeopleConnect's unlawful conduct, the award of
attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, and declaratory relief, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Wheeling, Illinois and has never
visited, used, or subscribed to the website Classmates.com.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
Seattle, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
120 N. LaSalle Street, 36th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312.899.9090
Facsimile: 312.251.1160
Email: SMM@cliffordlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
102 Bergen St.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (347) 645-0464
Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli (to be admitted Pro Hac)
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
Email: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
PEPSICO INC: Muller Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pepsico, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as William Muller and Jamaar Codrington,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Pepsico, Inc., Bottling Group, Llc, Cba Manufacturing Company,
Inc., New Bern Transport Corporation, Pepsi-Cola Advertising And
Marketing Inc., Pepsi-Cola Management And Administration Services,
Inc., Pepsi-Cola Sales And Distribution, Inc., Pepsi-Cola Technical
Operations, Inc., Pepsico Beverages North America, Pepsico Sales,
Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. CGC22597909 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
PepsiCo, Inc. -- https://www.pepsico.com/ -- is an American
multinational food, snack, and beverage corporation headquartered
in Harrison, New York, in the hamlet of Purchase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Morrison, Esq.
Jason M. Swucetich, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER-ORANGE COUNTY
801 W Civic Center Dr., Ste. 400
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4026
Phone: 657-251-6090
Fax: 714-479-0825
Email: michael.morrison@pubdef.ocgov.com
PERDOMO BUILDERS: Perez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Orlando Perdomo, Jr. and Perdomo Builders, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00722, (S.D. N.Y., January 27, 2022),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and
illegally withheld wages already earned pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York labor laws.
Defendants operate a renovation business working on a restaurant
"Wray's" where Perez was employed from approximately May 2021 and
December 2021, until his termination. His duties included
consultation with clients and design work associated with the
renovations, construction, rehabilitation, redesign, and other
related work contracted by the clients of Perdomo. Perez claims to
be paid a flat weekly salary regardless of hours worked in total or
in excess of 40 hours per week. He claims that his hours worked
were not accurately recorded and he was not reimbursed for the
computer he was forced to purchase for his job. After numerous
complaints about the hours worked and the lack of reimbursement for
the work-related materials, Perdomo allegedly terminated Perez.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin S. Johnson, Esq.
HAMRA LAW GROUP
1 Linden Place, Suite 207
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (646) 590-0571
PILOT AIR: Matute Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTIAN MATUTE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PILOT AIR FREIGHT, LLC dba PILOT
FREIGHT SERVICES; BEST BUY Co., INC.; and DOES 1 to 25 inclusive,
Case No. RG21113609, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on January 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-00587 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to reimburse employment expenses, unlawful
deduction from wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.
Pilot Air Freight, LLC, doing business as Pilot Freight Services,
is a full-service global transportation and logistics company in
Pennsylvania.
Best Buy Co., Inc. is an American multinational consumer
electronics retailer, headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
- and –
James A. Eckhart, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com
PIZZA HUT: Sued Over Alleged Delivery Drivers' Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Pizza
Hut, one of the world's largest pizza chains, is facing a $150
million class-action lawsuit in Canada for allegedly misclassifying
its delivery drivers as independent contractors.
The practice caused thousands of drivers at franchise locations
across the country to lose out on basic rights like minimum wage
and overtime pay, all while paying out of pocket for
delivery-related expenses, the proposed class action claims.
While the multinational pizza company has recognized drivers "in
the United States and other jurisdictions" as employees, it engaged
in "systemic" misclassification by failing to do so in Canada --
violating employment laws in multiple provinces, the statement of
claims says.
In a statement, a Pizza Hut Canada spokesperson said its
"restaurants are independently owned and operated by franchisees
who engage delivery drivers in accordance with all applicable laws
and regulations."
"We are unable to comment further on pending litigation at this
time," the statement said.
The allegations contained in the lawsuit have not yet been tested
in court, where the class action must now be certified to proceed.
Lead plaintiff Liubomir Marinov began working at a Toronto-area
Pizza Hut in 2005 and was classified as an independent contractor,
a category of worker that has no protection under provincial
employment laws. Since then, he's experienced "the challenges of
misclassification and sub-minimum wage work first-hand," he said.
"I'm bringing this proposed class action not just to stand up for
myself, but for delivery drivers across Canada in order to improve
the lives of these workers."
Marinov was, for a period, paid $4.50 per delivery plus tips,
according to the statement of claim. In the spring of 2020, he
began making an hourly rate of $8, which recently increased to
$10.
In addition to being denied Ontario's minimum wage, now $15 an
hour, Marinov had to cover all the expenses of doing his work
himself, according to the lawsuit. That included gas and car costs,
as well as a data plan to use Pizza Hut's in-house delivery app
called Dragon Drive.
"He was not reimbursed for any of these expenses," the lawsuit
says.
The proposed class action extends back to 2019, when the Dragon
Drive app was fully implemented across the company. Pizza Hut has
around 18,000 restaurants in 100 countries, the statement of claim
says, and is the second largest chain in Canada.
The lawsuit argues that franchisor Pizza Hut is effectively a
single employer that sets overarching practices and standards
across all its storefronts -- including the contractor designation
for drivers. In addition to excluding drivers from provincial
employment laws, the classification also means companies do not
need to make employment insurance or pension contributions.
Yet delivery drivers in the United States are classified as
employees, court records show, although Pizza Hut and its
franchisees have been subject to legal action alleging drivers are
unlawfully required to pay their own vehicle expenses.
"Food delivery is difficult work for low pay. Drivers like Mr.
Marinov have been on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,
delivering Canadians' food and making it possible for many of us to
stay safely at home," said Josh Mandryk at Goldblatt Partners, one
of the Toronto-based labour law firms spearheading the lawsuit.
To meet the legal definition of an independent contractor, workers
must exert significant control over their own working conditions.
To labour advocates -- and recent legal decisions -- the
designation does not accurately capture the realities of gig work,
which critics say is far less flexible than proponents contend.
The proposed class action is part of a growing number of challenges
to what critics call misclassification in a number of fields, from
food delivery to health care to trucking.
"Employee misclassification in the pizza delivery industry is
pervasive. This class action is about challenging that practice and
improving work for Pizza Hut delivery drivers," said Andrew
Monkhouse of Monkhouse Law, the firm jointly representing Marinov.
According to the class action, "all aspects" of Marinov's work were
"dictated in detail" by Pizza Hut's app. Delivery drivers cannot
pick which orders to fulfil, or decline orders assigned to them;
they are also placed on a timer when making deliveries, according
to the lawsuit.
"If a driver does not comply with the directions of the app, they
risk discipline," the statement of claim says.
Moreover, Marinov's contract allegedly set out instructions for how
to behave on the job: drivers cannot ask for tips, must report for
their shift at a set time, and are prohibited from working for
other companies during those hours.
These features set Pizza Hut apart from other app-based delivery
companies, noted Monkhouse.
"Like other delivery apps, the app mandated by Pizza Hut provides
significant control over when and how the delivery drivers perform
their work," he said. "Unlike many of those working on apps in the
gig economy, though, Pizza Hut delivery drivers are scheduled for
shifts, and deliver food exclusively for Pizza Hut during their
scheduled hours."
Since delivery is "the backbone of the pizza industry," Pizza Hut's
drivers were also "integral" to the company's core business --
another hallmark of employee status, the class action adds.
"(Marinov) has worked for the defendants for over a decade," the
lawsuit says. "(He) has been deprived of the benefits and security
minimum employment standards would have afforded him." [GN]
PRINTGLOBE INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PrintGlobe, Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PrintGlobe, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00837 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
PrintGlobe -- https://www.printglobe.com/ -- was founded in Austin,
Texas in April 1995 as a small graphic design and printing
company.[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
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Product Warranties
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Procter &
Gamble and subsidiary Gillette face a proposed class action that
alleges the companies have unlawfully tied the validity of their
consumer product warranties to the use of only authorized repair
services or replacement parts.
The 17-page lawsuit says the so-called "tying arrangements" wielded
by the companies, who make and sell products under the Gillette,
Venus, Braun and Oral-B brands, violate state and federal law and
are not immediately apparent to buyers at the point of sale.
The plaintiff, a Shirley, Massachusetts resident, claims to have
bought a Braun electric shaver in June 2019 under the belief that
he would be able to repair the product himself if it malfunctioned.
The consumer was unaware, the suit says, that any self-repair to
the shaver was prohibited under the terms of the product's
warranty.
"Defendants disclosed on the packaging that the Product included a
one-year limited warranty but did not disclose that the warranty
included an unlawful repair restriction," the complaint says,
claiming the plaintiff would not have purchased the shaver, or
would have paid substantially less for it, had he known the full
nature of the defendants' warranty.
According to the lawsuit, the defendants condition warranty
coverage on the usage of their own repair services. The companies'
warranties include specific language that states that a warranty
"becomes void if repairs are undertaken by unauthorized persons and
if [brand] parts are not used," the suit states.
According to the case, Procter & Gamble and Gillette, by
conditioning their warranties in this manner, have violated the
tying ban in the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which
prohibits a company from conditioning its warranty on a consumer's
use of any article or service, other than one provided free of
charge under the warranty, identified by brand, trade or
corporation name.
The lawsuit looks to cover all U.S. buyers of Gillette, Venus,
Braun and Oral-B products that came with a warranty provision
prohibiting self-repair and/or the use of unauthorized parts. [GN]
REALMANAGE LLC: Condo Owners File Suit Over "Unconscionable Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a group of
Chicago condominium owners have launched another class action
lawsuit over what they call "unconscionable fees" charged to condo
owners to access documents they need to complete the sale of their
units.
On Jan. 20, named plaintiffs Katherine M. Atkins and Zane Fulton,
each a DuPage County resident who formerly owned condominiums in
suburban Cook County, filed their putative class action complaint
in Cook County Circuit Court against vendors RealManage and
HomeWiseDocs.
The plaintiffs are represented in the action by a collection of
attorneys, including Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., and others with the
Zimmerman Law Offices, of Chicago; Rusty Payton, of Payton Legal
Group, of Chicago; Arthur C. Czaja, of Niles; and Joseph S.
Davidson, of the Law Offices of Joseph P. Doyle, of Schaumburg.
The complaint takes aims at hundreds of dollars in fees the vendors
allegedly charged to Atkins, Fulton and other owners in the Chicago
area, for documents they said Illinois law requires them to provide
to buyers, when they close the sale of their units.
For instance, according to the complaint, Atkins sold a condo unit
she owned in Roselle in 2021.
Similarly, Fulton was seeking to sell a condo unit he owned in
Westmont.
During the sale process, both sellers were required to obtain a
so-called documentation bundle, which included a Paid Assessment
Letter, through RealManage, which does business under the name
American Community Management, and HomeWiseDocs.
RealManage provides services to assist condo management
associations with a range of administrative duties. HomeWiseDocs
helps condo associations manage required owner documents.
However, to obtain the documents, Atkins and Fulton said they were
both forced to pay $491 in fees to HomeWiseDocs.
The complaint asserts the amount of those fees violate Illinois'
condo law, which authorizes condo associations only to charge
"reasonable" fees to retrieve and provide such documents.
Instead, the complaint asserts document storage and retrieval
vendors have allegedly turned such required document processes into
"a cash cow at the expense of the condominium owners (the vendors
and associations) are supposed to serve."
"Simply put, (the Illinois Condo Act) prohibits Defendants from
turning the Condo Act's disclosure requirements into a revenue
source for Defendants or for others," the complaint states.
The new lawsuit comes about a month after an Illinois appellate
court specifically ruled Illinois' Condominium Act allows for class
action lawsuits over the collection of allegedly unreasonable
document fees.
In that December 2021 ruling, a three-justice panel of the Illinois
First District Appellate Court noted they believed the language of
the Condo Act indicated lawmakers who included the documentation
requirements also wished to protect sellers in the process, as well
as buyers.
And the justices ruled vendors hired by condo associations to
manage the document retrieval process cannot get away with conduct
that the law prohibits to condo associations, as well.
The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include everyone in
Illinois who paid such fees to HomeWiseDocs to retrieve documents
required by law to disclose to buyers at the time of sale.
The complaint does not estimate how many condo sellers this class
action may ultimately include. However, the complaint notes
RealManage helps manage condo associations in seven Illinois
counties and 11 cities and villages, including Chicago, Naperville,
Joliet, Aurora and Elgin.
And the complaint notes "RealManage is just one of approximately
1,300 condominium association management companies that use
HomeWiseDocs."
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages
and punitive damages, plus attorney fees. [GN]
RENUE SYSTEMS: Win Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Sierra Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants preliminary approval of the parties' settlement in the
lawsuit captioned MARTIN SIERRA and TYRONE BATTS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RENUE
SYSTEMS OF NY-NJ, LLC, and JUSTIN CHODOS, Defendants, Case No. 20
Civ. 399 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement submitted by Named
Plaintiffs Martin Sierra and Tyrone Blatts, which was filed with
the Court on consent of Defendants Renue Systems of NY-NJ, LLC and
Justin Chodos on Oct. 4, 2021.
Having reviewed the Motion, and all documents and exhibits
submitted therewith, the Court grants preliminary approval of the
settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).
Accordingly, the Court rules that upon preliminary review, the
settlement reached by the parties, as set forth in both the Motion
and in the Settlement Agreement, appears to be fair and reasonable
to all involved, suffers from no obvious defects, was reached after
arms-length negotiations between the parties, and appears to
constitute a reasonable compromise of the claims and defenses in
this matter. The Parties are directed to perform according to the
terms of their Settlement Agreement, except as expressly indicated
otherwise by the Order or other ruling of the Court.
The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the settlement
class, defined as:
a. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), all commercial
cleaners who were employed by Renue Systems during the
applicable period from Dec. 11, 2013, to the Present;
b. Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), all commercial cleaners who
were employed by Renue Systems during the applicable period
from Dec. 11, 2013, to the Present and who timely submit a
Claim Form, thereby opting into the settlement and, in so
doing, releasing their FLSA claims.
The Parties' proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action Settlement
and Claim Form are approved, are found to be a reasonable means of
providing notice to the Class Members under the circumstances, and
when completed, will constitute due and sufficient notice of the
settlement to all persons affected by and/or entitled to
participate in the settlement, in full compliance with the notice
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
due process of law.
Jaffe Glenn Law Group, P.A., is appointed as counsel for the Class.
Class Counsel has designated, the Defendants have consented to, and
the Court appoints Arden Claims Service, LLC, as the Settlement
Claims Administrator.
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on the settlement on Feb.
22, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 618 at the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Street, in
New York City, New York 10007.
A full-text copy of the Court's Revised Order dated Jan. 13, 2022,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr6enr4h from Leagle.com.
RETAIL SERVICES: Asabre Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
Eva Asabre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RETAIL SERVICES & SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a TOTAL WINE &
MORE, Case No. C-15-CV-21-000459 was removed from the Circuit Court
for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on Jan. 19, 2022, and assigned
Case No. 8:22-cv-00148-GLS.
The complaint alleges generally that Total Wine sent e-mail
communications to the Plaintiff and others that contained
“misleading subject lines” and that these communications
violated the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act (MCEMA).[BN]
The Plaintiff is reprensted by:
Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq.
David M. Trojanowski, Esq.
2345 York Road, Suite B-13
Timonium, MD 21093
Email: jct@zlawmaryland.com
dmt@zlawmaryland.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William J. Murphy, Esq.
John J. Connolly, Esq.
Alicia Shelton, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
100 E. Pratt St., Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: 410 332 0444 (Phone)
Fax: 410 659 0436
Email: wmurphy@zuckerman.com
jconnolly@zuckerman.com
ashelton@zuckerman.com
SACRAMENTO SELF-HELP: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento Self-Help
Housing, Inc., LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marisa Williams,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sacramento
Self-Help Housing, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00314698-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."
Sacramento Self Help Housing -- https://www.sacselfhelp.org/ --
assists persons who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to
find and retain stable and affordable housing.[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
SAGINAW, MI: Must Face Class Action Over Illegal Parking Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that lawyers who argued that a
Michigan city violated the U.S. Constitution by chalking tires have
successfully turned the case into a class action potentially
affecting thousands of parking tickets.
A judge twice dismissed the unusual lawsuit against Saginaw, but it
was overturned both times by an appeals court.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington will give Saginaw yet another
opportunity to claim that tire chalking was a legal way to enforce
parking limits, though he said the city's arguments after two
losses don't seem "immediately compelling."
In the same order, Ludington approved a request to make the case a
class action. It means vehicle owners who were ticketed since 2014
could be compensated unless Saginaw turns things around and wins
the litigation. A trial was set for Aug. 30.
The lawsuit began in 2017 when Alison Taylor sued to challenge 14
parking tickets.
Her lawyers, Philip Ellison and Matthew Gronda, argued that Saginaw
was violating the Fourth Amendment by marking tires with chalk
without a search warrant and then returning to write a ticket if
the vehicle was parked too long.
Saginaw said marking a tire was a "minimal intrusion" when weighed
against the city's interest in managing parking.
Ludington ruled in the city's favor and dismissed the case. But the
6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice has reversed his
decisions.
"Tire chalking is not necessary to meet the ordinary needs of law
enforcement, let alone the extraordinary," Judge Richard Griffin
said in a 3-0 opinion last August.
Tire chalking was used in approximately 4,800 parking tickets,
which cost $15 or $30, depending on whether they were paid on time,
Ellison said in a court filing Monday.
He's eager to get Ludington's approval to send postcards to people
who could be affected. Ellison is also challenging tire marking in
Ann Arbor and Bay City.
Decisions by the 6th Circuit set legal precedent in Michigan, Ohio,
Kentucky and Tennessee. But the Taylor case has also been cited by
lawyers suing Los Angeles and San Diego over a similar practice in
those California cities. [GN]
SANGRIA 71: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Santos Says
------------------------------------------------------
Rufino Santos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sangria 71 East Corp., RVC Empanada Corp.,
Spain Food Group Inc., Jose Fernandez and Rosendo Fernandez,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00491 (E.D. N.Y., January 27, 2022),
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid
overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor
Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Defendants operate a restaurant named "SANGRIA 71," where Santos
worked as a busser and food runner. He claims that he did not
receive the statutory minimum wage, overtime pay for hours worked
over 40 per week or spread-of-hours pay and, additionally, did not
receive wage notices, or wage statements at the end of each pay
period. Santos claims to have received a sub-minimum wage but also
performs a number of non-tipped duties unrelated to their tipped
occupations exceeding 20% of his time rendered. Sangria 71
allegedly also takes tips from wait staff to pay non-tipped
employees' wages. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 583-9500
Fax: (212) 308-8582
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com
SOUTHEAST RESTAURANTS: Bartel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA BARTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHEAST RESTAURANTS CORP., Case No. 3:22-cv-00016-TCB
(N.D. Ga., Jan. 29, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys'
fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of allegedly
failing to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately August of 2019 until May of
2020. She asserts that the Defendant paid her and other delivery
drivers less than minimum wage per hour for all hours worked
outside of the restaurant making deliveries. She further alleges
that the Defendant does not reimburse them at a reasonable
approximation of delivery drivers' expenses.
Southeast Restaurants Corp. owns and operates multiple Pizza Hut
franchises in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800
Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK
& BENJAMIN, LLC
101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 979-3150
E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com
SPECTRA ENERGY: Settles Investors' Class Action for $7.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Spectra
Energy Partners LP's former general partner will pay $7.5 million
to resolve investor litigation over the pipeline operator's $3.3
billion "roll-up" buyout by Enbridge Inc., according to a court
filing on Jan. 25 in Delaware.
The class action settlement, docketed in Delaware Chancery Court,
would resolve claims that the general partner entity engineered the
transaction as an end run around ongoing litigation challenging
Spectra's earlier sale of pipeline assets worth $1.5 billion to its
parent company for less than $1 billion.
The agreement requires the approval of Vice Chancellor Sam
Glasscock III, who initially dismissed the case in 2019. [GN]
STANDARD LITHIUM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Standard Lithium Ltd. ("Standard Lithium" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SLI) 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 Standard Lithium securities
between May 19, 2020 and November 17, 2021, both dates included
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until March 28, 2022 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Standard Lithium explores for, develops, and processes lithium
brine properties in the U.S. The Company's flagship project is the
Lanxess project with approximately 150,000 acres of brine leases
located in south-western Arkansas.
On May 19, 2020, Standard Lithium announced the successful start-up
of the Company's industrial-scale Direct Lithium Extraction
Demonstration Plant at Lanxess's South Plant facility in southern
Arkansas (the "Demonstration Plant"), a purportedly
"first-of-its-kind plant" using Standard Lithium's proprietary
LiSTR Direct Lithium Extraction ("LiSTR") technology. According to
the Company, one of the key features of the LiSTR technology was
that it increased lithium recovery efficiencies to more than 90%.
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 LiSTR technology's
extraction recovery efficiencies were overstated; (ii) accordingly,
the Company's final product lithium recovery percentage at the
Demonstration Plant would not be as high as the Company had
represented to investors; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On November 18, 2021, Blue Orca Capital published a short report
(the "Blue Orca Report" or the "Report") alleging that Standard
Lithium's claims of achieving of 90% extraction rates of battery
grade lithium at its Arkansas demonstration site are not supported
by previously undisclosed data filed by the Company with the state
regulator, which indicated significantly lower recovery rates.
Following publication of the Blue Orca Report, Standard Lithium's
common share price fell $1.86 per share, or 18.84%, to close at
$8.01 per share on November 18, 2021.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Standard Lithium 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
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. [GN]
STANDARD LITHIUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Standard Lithium Ltd. (NYSE: SLI) securities between May 19, 2020
and November 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
March 28, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Gloster v.
Standard Lithium Ltd., No. 22-cv-00507 (E.D.N.Y.). The Standard
Lithium class action lawsuit charges Standard Lithium as well as
certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Standard Lithium class action lawsuit, please
provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact
attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or
via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Standard Lithium class action lawsuit must be filed with the court
no later than March 28, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Standard Lithium explores, develops, and
processes lithium brine properties in the U.S., with its flagship
project being the Lanxess project with approximately 150,000 acres
of brine leases located in southwestern Arkansas. On May 19, 2020,
Standard Lithium announced the successful start-up of Standard
Lithium's industrial-scale Direct Lithium Extraction Demonstration
Plant at Lanxess' South Plant facility in southern Arkansas (the
"Demonstration Plant"), a purportedly "first-of-its-kind plant"
using Standard Lithium's proprietary LiSTR Direct Lithium
Extraction ("LiSTR") technology.
The Standard Lithium class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) the LiSTR technology's extraction
recovery efficiencies were overstated; (ii) accordingly, Standard
Lithium's final product lithium recovery percentage at the
Demonstration Plant would not be as high as Standard Lithium had
represented to investors; and (iii) as a result, Standard Lithium's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On November 18, 2021, Blue Orca Capital published a short report
alleging that Standard Lithium's claims of achieving of 90%
extraction rates of battery grade lithium at its Arkansas
demonstration site are not supported by previously undisclosed data
filed by Standard Lithium with the state regulator, which indicated
significantly lower recovery rates. Following publication of the
Blue Orca report, Standard Lithium's common share price fell by
nearly 19%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Standard
Lithium securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Standard Lithium class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Standard
Lithium class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Standard Lithium class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Standard Lithium class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors that year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]
STARTEK INC: Console & Associates Investigates Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Console & Associates, P.C. recently announced it
will be investigating the recent StarTek, Inc. data breach to
identify what, if any, legal remedies those whose information was
compromised in the breach have against the company. If evidence
reveals that StarTek, Inc. did not take preventative steps to
safeguard consumer data from ending up in the hands of hackers and
other cybercriminals, the company may be financially liable through
a data breach class action lawsuit.
A data breach occurs when an unauthorized party gains access to
consumer data, typically by hacking into a company's information
technology network. While a data breach doesn't mean that those
affected will necessarily experience identity theft, it is a
possibility that should not be ignored. This is because there is no
way of telling what a hacker plans to do with the information, and
one of the most common reasons why hackers seek consumer data is to
commit identity theft or sell the information to another party who
may have similar criminal intent.
The StarTek data breach was only recently announced to the public.
Thus, the investigation into its causes is still ongoing. However,
the breach raises serious questions about StarTek's efforts to keep
consumer data secure from cyber threats. If it turns out that
StarTek, Inc. was negligent in how it handled or maintained
consumer data, affected parties may be eligible for financial
compensation.
Attorney Richard Console explains, "It's easy to place all the
blame for a data breach on the person who hacks into an
organization's system; however, this ignores the legal and moral
obligation that these companies owe to customers. When someone
gives a company their business, they trust that the information in
the organization's possession will remain private—and out of the
hands of criminals. While protecting consumer data requires a
business to undergo some effort and expense, in our current
environment of widespread hacking, this is a cost of doing business
that all organizations must take seriously."
According to the most recent data breach letter issued by StarTek,
Inc., on June 26, 2021, the company experienced what it
characterizes as a "network disruption." No further details were
provided. After investigating the incident, the company determined
that an unknown party gained access to and obtained data from the
StarTek network without authorization.
On December 23, 2021, StarTek, Inc. subsequently determined that
the breach exposed the personal information of 24,819 customers and
employees. This information included affected parties' first names,
last names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth.
Around January 21, 2022, StarTek, Inc. sent out written data breach
notifications to all affected customers and employees, informing
them of the breach and what they can do to protect themselves. In
this communication, StarTek, Inc. explained that there is no
indication that the unauthorized party used or intends to use any
of the data obtained. However, the company acknowledged the risks
involved and encouraged those impacted by the breach to keep a
lookout for signs of identity theft.
Those receiving a data breach letter from the StarTek, Inc. protect
themselves to the extent possible by taking the following steps:
-- Carefully review the letter sent by StarTek, Inc.;
-- Retain a copy of the data breach notification letter;
-- Enroll in the free credit monitoring service provided by
StarTek, Inc.;
-- Change all passwords and security questions to online
accounts;
-- Frequently review all credit card and bank account statements
for any signs of fraud or unauthorized activity;
-- Monitor credit reports for any unexpected changes or signs of
identity theft;
-- Contact a credit bureau to request a temporary fraud alert;
and
-- Notify all banks and credit card companies of the data
breach.
To learn more about this data breach, please visit
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/data-breach-alert-startek-inc/.
Console & Associates P.C. is dedicated to protecting consumers'
privacy interests. The firm investigates all types of data
breaches, ransomware attacks and other network intrusions to
determine the legal rights of consumers who trusted corporations
with their sensitive information. Consumers can reach Console &
Associates, P.C. through the firm's website at
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/consumer-privacy-data-breach-lawyers/.
[GN]
STARTEK INC: Kirtley Files Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against StarTek, Inc. The
case is styled as Tamara Kirtley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. StarTek, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00258
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
StarTek Inc. -- https://www.startek.com/ -- is a customer
engagement business process outsourcing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gklinger@masonllp.com
STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION: Figueroa Balks at Carpenters' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JARROD FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF NY,
INC., d/b/a STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION, HELVETIA CORPORATION, d/b/a
STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION, and WAYNE NOEL, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00537 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2022) seeks to recover from
Defendants unpaid overtime premiums, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a carpenter
for their construction business in New York from May 2019 to
September 2021. She asserts that she worked in excess of 40 hours
per week without receiving their corresponding overtime premium.
The Defendants own and operate a construction and remodeling
services company under the tradename "Statewide Construction."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
SUAVS LLC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Suavs, LLC. The case
is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Suavs, LLC. doing business as:
Suavs, Case No. 1:22-cv-00866 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Suavs -- https://www.suavshoes.com/ -- offers the most comfortable
shoes in the world for people on the go.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SUNPOWER CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of SunPower Corp. (NASDAQ: SPWR) resulting from
allegations that SunPower may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased SunPower securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2242.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On January 20, 2022, SunPower announced that it
had "identified a cracking issue that developed over time in
certain factory-installed connectors." Further, the Company
"expects approximately $27 million of supplier-quality related
charges in fourth quarter 2021 and approximately $4 million in the
first quarter of 2022" to replace the connectors.
On this news, SunPower's stock fell $3.22, or 16%, to close at
$15.80 on January 21, 2022, damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SURGICAL SOCK: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Surgical Sock Shop
II, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Surgical Sock Shop II,
Inc. d/b/a The Compression Store, Case No. 1:22-cv-00520 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Surgical Sock Shop II Inc. doing business as Compression Store is a
source for premium support stockings and compression wear.[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
T-MOBILE USA: Philpot Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Ryan Philpot, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-00061-SRB (W.D. Mo., Jan. 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American
wireless network operator majority owned by German
telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom, which holds 52.1% of
the common stock.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Skeens, Esq.
WALTERS RENWICK RICHARDS SKEENS & VAUGHAN, P.C.
1100 Main Street, Suite 2500
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: (816) 421-6620
Fax: (816) 421-4747
Email: dskeens@wrrsvlaw.com
T.O.P. MARKETING: Collazo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T.O.P. Marketing
Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Erika Collazo, on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees v. T.O.P. Marketing
Group, Inc., a New York Corporation, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00314092-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
19, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
T.O.P. Marketing Group -- https://www.topmarketinginc.com/ -- is
one of the best marketing companies in face-to-face marketing and
customer service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: bberzin@shimodalaw.com
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Talis Biomedical Corporation
(NASDAQ: TLIS) and Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS)
Class Period: February 12, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2022
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that 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.
By the commencement of this action, Talis stock has traded as low
as $3.81 per share, a more than 76% decline from the $16 per share
IPO price.
For more information on the Talis class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TLIS
Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH)
Class Period: August 6, 2020 - November 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2022
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.
For more information on the Oak Street Health class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/OSH
About Bragar Eagel
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. [GN]
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Avery Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teksystems, Inc. The
case is styled as Bo Avery, Jill Unverferth, Kristy Camilleri,
Phoebe Rodgers, individually and behalf of themselves, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Teksystems, Inc., Case
No. CGC22597900 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 28,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
TEKsystems -- https://www.teksystems.com/en -- is a leading
provider of IT staffing, talent management and services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anne Rebecca Kramer, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116-2648
TFORCE FREIGHT: Gonzalez Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTOR GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TFORCE FREIGHT, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2105223, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00182 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including unlawful business practices, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required
meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wages statements, and failure to reimburse
employees for required expenses.
TForce Freight, Inc. is an American less than truckload freight
carrier based in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
J.P. Schreiber, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
jp.schreiber@morganlewis.com
- and –
Daniel N. Rojas, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: daniel.rojas@morganlewis.com
THC-ORANGE COUNTY: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THC-Orange County,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Arva Anderson, an individual, on
behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. THC-Orange County, LLC, a limited liability, company, Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC22597887 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
THC - Orange County, Inc. provides healthcare services. The Company
offers medical and surgical care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
TRANSOM SYMPHONY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transom Symphony
Opco, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Transom Symphony Opco,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00832 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Transom Symphony Opco, LLC is located in Stamford, Connecticut and
is part of the Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation
Manufacturing Industry.[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
TSCHETTER SULZER: Warden Files FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tschetter Sulzer,
P.C. The case is styled as Shawnte Warden, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tschetter Sulzer, P.C.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00271 (D. Colo., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Tschetter Sulzer, P.C. -- https://www.thslawfirm.com/ -- is a
full-service real estate law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Phone: (720) 213-0675
Fax: (303) 927-0898
Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
VIDE BEVERAGES: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vide Beverages Inc.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vide
Beverages Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00528-MKB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vide Beverages -- https://www.drinkvide.com/ -- offers canned
cocktails made out of vodka or tequila, carbonated water, and
natural fruit flavor.[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
VISION SOLAR: Evidentiary Hearing in Smith Set for March 1
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEWART SMITH & FRED
HEIDARPOUR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. VISION SOLAR LLC & DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE AND EACH ONE
OF THEM, Case No. 2:20-cv-02185-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Michael M. Baylson entered an order regarding motion for class
certification as follows:
-- The Court will have an evidentiary hearing on Tuesday,
March 1, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3A.
-- The named Plaintiffs, Smith & Heidarpour, shall appear and
testify in person.
-- The Plaintiffs' expert Hansen may appear in person or by
video. Plaintiffs may call additional witnesses and
introduce exhibits to show that they can meet all relevant
requirements of Rule 23, including ascertainability. The
Court will allow three (3) hours for this testimony, not
including cross examination.
-- Plaintiffs shall file a pre-hearing "offer of proof"
summarizing testimony of all witnesses, limited to 10
pages, by Tuesday, February 22, 2022.
-- The Court may schedule an additional hearing for Defendants
to present evidence and/or hear argument.
-- Within seven days, counsel shall submit to chambers
courtesy copies of all briefs with attached exhibits, bound
and tabbed, and unredacted.
Vision offers solar panel installation for homeowners across
Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gl593d at no extra charge.[CC]
VON HOLZHAUSEN: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Von Holzhausen
Corporation. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Von Holzhausen
Corporation doing business as: Von Holzhausen, Case No.
1:22-cv-00877 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
von Holzhausen -- https://vonholzhausen.com/ -- is a material
innovation company on a mission to fight climate change.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: To Settle Antitrust Suit on Illegal Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond at Reuters reports that a drug company once run by
Martin Shkreli has agreed to settle a proposed class action
alleging it illegally tried to block generic versions of a
life-saving medication whose price he famously raised.
Vyera Pharmaceuticals in a proposed settlement filed on Friday in
Manhattan federal court agreed to pay up to $28 million, money that
would derive from the up to $40 million it already agreed last
month to pay in a related case.
That case was brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and
seven states. A federal judge later in the FTC's case barred
Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry for life and ordered him
to pay $64.6 million.
Shkreli, who ran Vyera as chief executive when it was known as
Turing Pharmaceuticals, is serving a seven-year prison sentence for
securities fraud in an unrelated case.
Friday's settlement would resolve claims that Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Minnesota brought on behalf of other third-party payers
that purchased Daraprim, which treats toxoplasmosis, a parasitic
infection that threatens people with weakened immune systems.
Vyera; its parent company, Phoenixus AG; Shkreli; and former Vyera
CEO Kevin Mulleady were all named as defendants and all agreed to
settle the case. The deal requires the approval of U.S. District
Judge Denise Cote.
The defendants did not admit to wrongdoing as part of the
settlement. Steve Reed, a lawyer for Vyera at Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, and Christopher Casey, Shkreli's attorney at Duane Morris,
did not respond to requests for comment.
Shkreli gained notoriety in 2015 after hiking Daraprim's price
overnight to $750 per tablet from $17.50, an increase of more than
4,000%.
The lawsuit accused Vyera of intentionally monopolizing the market
for Daraprim, which it acquired from Impax Laboratories Inc, by
illegally limiting generic competition.
As part of Friday's settlement, Vyera and Phoenixus agreed to pay
at least $7 million and up to $28 million based on certain future
revenues, plaintiffs' lawyers at Robins Kaplan said in court
papers.
Shkreli must abide by the injunctive relief entered against him in
the FTC's case.
The case is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota v. Vyera
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York, No. 21-cv-01884.
For the plaintiffs: Kellie Lerner and Ben Steinberg of Robins
Kaplan
For Vyera and Phoenixus: Steve Reed of Morgan Lewis & Bockius
For Shkreli: Christopher Casey of Duane Morris
For Mulleady: Ken David of Kasowitz Benson Torres [GN]
WASHINGTON: Sather Files Suit in E.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Washington,
et al. The case is styled as Tobin Sather, Kenneth Lawrence,
individually, on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v.
State of Washington, Jay Inslee, Stephen Sinclair, Cheryl Strange,
Sean Murphy, Jeff Uttecht, Ron Haynes, Sarah Sytsma, Dr. Sarah
Kariko, Greg Miller, Case No. 2:22-cv-00014-TOR (E.D. Wash., Jan.
28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Washington -- https://access.wa.gov/ -- officially the State of
Washington, is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the
Western United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appears pro se.
WOLFGANG'S VAULT: Reaches Agreement to Resolve Copyright Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that online concert archive Wolfgang's Vault has
reached an agreement to end a dispute with a musician who accused
it of violating his copyrights by posting his band's concerts
without permission, according to a California federal court
filing.
The parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, which means
it can't be refiled.
The stipulation follows the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals'
decision to break up Greg Kihn's class action against the site
earlier in January.
Wolfgang's Vault hosts thousands of audio and video recordings of
concerts by performers including the Rolling Stones, the Grateful
Dead and Janis Joplin. It and owner William Sagan have faced
multiple copyright infringement lawsuits, including one brought by
the Doors, Carlos Santana and others that settled in 2008, and
another in which a group of publishers won nearly $200,000 from the
site in 2020.
Kihn said he never approved the recording or distribution of the
Greg Kihn Band's shows on Wolfgang's Vault. He sued in 2017 on
behalf of himself and others whose concert recordings the site
allegedly offered without permission.
The 9th Circuit reversed a decision to certify two musician classes
earlier in January, finding that Kihn had failed to prove that
issues common to the classes predominated over his own claims.
Wolfgang's Vault's attorney Michael Elkin said they had no comment
beyond the ruling. Kihn's attorney didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.
The case is Kihn v. Wolfgang's Vault, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 4:17-cv-05343.
For Kihn: Daniel Warshaw of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw; and Neville
Johnson of Johnson & Johnson
For Wolfgang's Vault: Michael Elkin of Winston & Strawn [GN]
[*] Console & Associates Investigates Dark-Herring Scam Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark-Herring is a sophisticated scam that uses direct carrier
billing to charge consumers a monthly fee without their permission.
This scam may have cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars.
According to a recent news report, a new type of scamware, called
"Dark-Herring," may have scammed upwards of 105 million victims
globally.
Users who fell victim to the scam may be eligible for financial
compensation. The law firm of Console & Associates, P.C., is
actively investigating the Dark Herring scamware incident to
determine all potentially liable parties. If evidence emerges that
certain app stores or technology companies were negligent and
allowed the scam to operate-even unknowingly-there may be the
potential for a large-scale class action lawsuit.
Our class action lawsuit attorneys are currently interviewing
victims of the scam and investigating what compensation may be
available.
What Is Dark Herring Scamware?
Scamware is a type of malware, or malicious software, that
manipulates users into buying unwanted software. The most common
example of scamware is those pop-up ads explaining that your
computer has been infected with a virus and that you need to click
a link to purchase software to fix the problem.
Dark Herring is a very sophisticated scam that tricks users into
signing up for automatic monthly bills. Here is it works: The
orchestrators of the scam set up malicious web pages that review a
user's geographic location. Once a user's location is determined,
the website routes them to another local webpage that is in their
language. The idea is that users are more comfortable agreeing to
information requests from websites in their own language.
" . . . what users don't know is that they are not actually
confirming their identity, instead they are signing up for direct
carrier billing. ."
Once the user is rerouted to the targeted webpage, the page then
asks the user to confirm their identity by providing their cell
phone number. However, what users don't know is that they are not
actually confirming their identity, instead they are signing up for
direct carrier billing. The average monthly charge is $15 per
month; however, because users do not realize they signed up for any
service, most users go several months without noticing the
unauthorized charges. And because the application stays on a user's
mobile phone, the billing can continue into perpetuity.
According to a recent report, the creators of the Dark Herring scam
first began bilking users in March 2020, and the most recent
instance of the scam appears to be in November 2021. Over this
period, the report alleges that there were over 470 malicious
applications available through the Google Play store and other
third-party app stores. The report estimates that the number of
users whose phones may be infected with Dark Herring is
approximately 105 million.
Can Users Who Suffered Financial Losses Pursue a Legal Claim?
Certainly, scamware such as Dark Herring is illegal, and those who
are responsible for the scamware can be held financially
accountable for the losses suffered by users. However, given the
difficulty in tracking the creators of these scams down, the best
hope for users to recover compensation may be through other
potentially responsible parties.
To be clear, there is no indication that any app store or other
technology company played a role in Dark Herring. However, Console
& Associates, P.C. is actively investigating all possibly liable
parties to better determine the legal rights of those impacted by
this scamware. For example, large-scale technology companies do not
necessarily need to have played an active or knowing role in
facilitating a scam in order to be held liable. Under the U.S.
consumer privacy laws, companies can be held liable for failing to
adequately protect consumers from cyber threats.
The law firm of Console & Associates P.C. is committed to
protecting consumers' privacy interests from the ever-present
threat of cyberattacks. The firm investigates all types of data
breaches, scamware schemes, ransomware attacks and other network
intrusions to determine the legal rights of consumers who trusted
corporations with their personal data.[GN]
[*] Pandemic to Generate More Workplace Class Lawsuits in 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
COVID-19 pandemic will generate more workplace class-action
litigation this year, particularly for wage and hour issues,
experts warn.
There has been a significant increase in the size of aggregate
class-action settlement recoveries, particularly last year, and the
trend is expected to continue.
Based on the top 10 largest case resolutions in various workplace
class-action categories, settlements totaled $1.58 billion in 2020
and $3.62 billion in 2021, compared with $1.34 billion in 2019,
according to Seyfarth Shaw LLP's Annual Workplace Class Action
Litigation Report: 2022 Edition.
"The big issue is, you've got the Biden administration that is
very, very pro-worker, pro-regulation, and so you're going to have
government enforcement actions that are very much aligned with the
plaintiffs class-action bar," which will lead to an uptick in
filings, said Gerald Maatman, a partner with Seyfarth Shaw in
Chicago.
COVID-19 will contribute to the expected increase this year,
experts say.
Employers' efforts to comply with various COVID-19-related
obligations "presents uncharted territory, as far as potential
class-action claims," said Gregory P. Abrams, a partner with Faegre
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP in Chicago, who represents employers.
"COVID has opened up all-new vistas for the plaintiffs bar," said
Lisa A. Schreter, a shareholder with Littler Mendelson P.C. in
Atlanta.
For example, a California appeals court ruled in See's Candies Inc.
v. Ek, that South San Francisco-based See's Candies must face a
lawsuit filed by an employee who alleged she caught COVID-19 at
work and gave it to her husband, resulting in his death.
"It appears to allow what we call 'take home' COVID cases, at least
at the pleading stage," and "is certainly not good news for
employers if that reflects a larger trend that we see in California
of more of those claims," Ms. Schreter said.
Among traditional litigation issues being applied to the pandemic
is religious discrimination, which may be asserted by workers who
face consequences if they refuse to be vaccinated, Tao Leung, a
partner with Hogan Lovells US LLP in Los Angeles.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision blocking a COVID-19
vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers could result in charges
that employers do not have enough safety measures in place, because
it could open companies up to exposure to charges of spreading the
virus, said Adam Kemper, Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based partner
with Kelley Kronenberg PA.
"As long as COVID's around and employers continue to keep employees
in close contact with each other to where they're interacting"
there is "always going to be a degree" of this risk, he said.
Meanwhile, wage and hour litigation continues to be "the hot,
driving edge of class actions," said Paul E. Starkman, a member of
law firm Clark Hill PLC in Chicago.
Situations such as a traveling salesperson who is now working at a
company facility or job duties being shifted because of workers
calling in sick could result in employees being newly entitled to
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and create exposure
for employers if salaries are not appropriately adjusted, Mr.
Kemper said.
"The way in which people are paid is still the No. 1 pressure
point," Mr. Maatman said. People working from home will raise
questions as to when the workday starts and ends, he said.
However, plaintiff attorney David Sanford, of Sanford Heisler Sharp
LLP, in Washington, said fines for wage and hour violations are
insufficient to deter some employers because even if they are
eventually caught, a fine will still cost less than would obeying
the statute.
Experts also point to the "'great resignation" -- in which many
employees have voluntarily left their jobs during the pandemic,
creating labor shortages -- as a factor that will contribute to
more lawsuits being filed. Workers are more willing to participate
in class actions, and plaintiffs attorneys are "harvesting the
low-hanging fruit when employers don't follow wage and hour rules,"
Mr. Starkman said.
There has been a shift in the balance of power between workers and
their companies, said Ian Carleton Schaefer, chair, New York
employment and labor, at Loeb & Loeb LLP in New York.
"When someone sees something out of order or out of compliance,"
they have no fear "of acting individually or collectively because
they know there are plenty of jobs out there," he said. "It's a
lower-risk proposition."
Another issue is nonuniform laws. Plaintiffs attorneys will take
advantage of the "complicated patchwork" of employment-related
laws, said Jason E. Reisman, a partner with Blank Rome LLP in
Philadelphia.
He pointed to a July 2021 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
in Re: Amazon.com, Inc. that held, in part, there is no "de
minimis" exception under Pennsylvania's wage laws, which means
employers must pay workers for even minimal amounts of time, such
as minutes spent going through screening. This is not the case
under the FLSA.
Another concern is privacy-related litigation, including litigation
surrounding the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Illinois remains the only state that permits individuals to pursue
litigation under a private right of action, although New York City
has enacted such legislation.
Experts say it has already led to considerable litigation in
Illinois and will lead to more lawsuits if other states adopt it.
[GN]
[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Filings Down in 2021
-----------------------------------------------------
For the first time since 2016, fewer than 300 new US federal
securities class action suits were filed. This is one of many
significant findings identified in "Recent Trends in Securities
Class Action Litigation: 2021 Full-Year Review," the latest edition
of an annual report released by NERA Economic Consulting. The
decline in filings -- from 321 in 2020 to 205 in 2021 -- was driven
by an 85% decrease in the number of merger-objection suits last
year.
Of the 239 cases resolved in 2021, 153 were dismissed and 86
resolved through a settlement. This is a decline in dismissed cases
and total resolutions relative to 2020 and the lowest recorded
level of total resolutions since 2015. Compared to 2020, there was
an increase in both dismissed and settled non-merger-objection
cases.
Highlights from the 2021 year-end report include:
- In 2021, aggregate settlements amounted to $1.8 billion. This
is $400 million lower than the $2.2 billion aggregate settlement
amount in 2019, and considerably lower than the $3.1 billion and
$5.2 billion in 2020 and 2018, respectively.
- The average settlement value decreased by over 50% in 2021 to
$21 million, the lowest recorded average in the last 10 years. The
median settlement value was $8 million, the lowest recorded median
value since 2017.
- There were 20 securities class action cases filed with a
COVID-19-related claim alleged in the complaint, a decrease from
the 33 suits filed in 2020.
- Over 10% of new federal filings were related to special purpose
acquisition companies (SPACs).
- Between January 2021 and December 2021, a total of 24 cases
related to SPACs were filed, a substantial increase from the one
case filed in 2020.
- Of the new cases filed in 2021, over 30% were filed against
defendants in the electronic technology and services sector and 40%
were filed in the Second Circuit.
- The aggregate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses
associated with settled cases was $451 million for 2021.
- The median NERA-Defined Investor Losses for cases settled in
2021 was $731 million, the highest recorded value since 2013, but
less than 5% higher than the 2020 value.
NERA Securities Class Action Trends Report Series
NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for more
than three decades. This year-end study is co-authored by NERA
Senior Consultants Janeen McIntosh and Svetlana Starykh, with
contributions from Dr. David Tabak. In addition to NERA's US
report, the firm produces an annual report on securities class
action litigation in Canada here.
To download the report, visit: www.nera.com/ustrends
About NERA
NERA Economic Consulting (www.nera.com) is a global firm of experts
dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative
principles to complex business and legal challenges. For more than
six decades, we have been creating strategies, studies, reports,
expert testimony, and policy recommendations for government
authorities and the world's leading law firms and corporations.
Continuing our legacy as the first international economic
consultancy, NERA serves clients from major cities across North
America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. [GN]
[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements Up in 2021
-------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that U.S.
securities class action settlements rose in 2021, according to a
new report from a division of proxy advisory firm Institutional
Shareholder Services (ISS).
The total value of U.S. securities class action settlements rose by
7.6% year over year to US$3.51 billion, ISS Securities Class Action
Services LLC (ISS SCAS) said in its report. The volume of
settlements was also up by 17.2% to 116, it noted.
"Investors last year saw significant monetary recoveries relative
to 2020 and we expect that trend to continue in 2022," said Ivar
Eilertsen, head of ISS SCAS, in a release.
Last year's settlement activity included 30 cases relating to
corporate stock offerings, 18 involving company transactions, and
13 based on alleged accounting violations, the firm reported.
Another 10 cases involved alleged insider trading and eight of the
settlements stemmed from financial restatements.
Settlement activity is likely to remain high, the firm said. [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 ***