/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220323.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 23, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 53
Headlines
2833 DECATUR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hoyos Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Gavin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Mohammed Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Turner Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Vandercook Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
A & H SPORTSWEAR: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABA LOVE: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 18 Deadline
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 29 Deadline
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of May 13 Deadline
ALL MY SONS: Class Notice & Consent to Opt-In in Vega Suit Approved
AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery May Proceed in Privacy Class Action
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Eifort Sues Over Unpaid Pay OT Wages
AMWAY CORP: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Indigenous Workers Urged to Join Class Action
BARREIRO CONCRETE: Arias Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
BORAL ROOFING: Meraz-Valencia Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
BROOKS SPORTS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CENTURY INTERNATIONAL: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHRISTMAS TREE SHOPS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CITIBANK NA: N.D. Illinois Denies Arbitration Bid in Collins Suit
CLARIVATE PLC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of March 25 Deadline
COBIAN CORPORATION: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLLECTORS COINS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLT'S MANUFACTURING: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONNECTICUT: Faces Prison Debt Class Suit From Former Inmate
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Court Stays Williams Suit
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Faces Melucci Suit in N.D. Cal.
COSTA DEL MAR: Davis Appeals Ruling in Smith's Illegal Fee Suit
COSTA DEL MAR: Miorelli Appeals Ruling in Smith's Illegal Fee Suit
COSTA DEL MAR: Valls Appeals Ruling in Smith's Illegal Fee Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: Thaller FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CUSIP GLOBAL: Faces Second Antirust Class Action Suit
CUT GOLF: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
D.R. HORTON: Lafayette Homebuyers File Fraud Class Action
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: January 3 Order in Pension Fund Suit Clarified
DOWN AND DIRTY: Hardwell Balks at Food Service Staff's Unpaid Wages
EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Dixon Suit Over Discriminatory Practices
ELECTRIC LAST: Kaskela Law Reminds of April 4 Deadline
ESSA BANCORP: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Illegal Fees
ESSA BANCORP: Sued Over Illegal Fees in Loans
FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
FAT BRANDS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Peeling Exterior Paint
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Transmission Problems
GLOBAL VALUE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Online Ordering Practices
GREATER CINCINNATI: Class in Kleinhans Suit Conditionally Certified
GRUMA CORPORATION: Salvador Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
GULFPORT ENERGY: Rotunno Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
H MART COMPANIES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HENKEL CORPORATION: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HENRY SCHEIN: Dropped from Consolidated Complaint
HOLIDAY HAVEN: Robinson & Cole Attorney Discusses CAFA Ruling
HOOK & REEL: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JM BULLION: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUUL LABS: Bear Lake Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
JUUL LABS: Bruneau-Grand View Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Emery County Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Coeur d'Alene Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Boundary County Suit Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Heritage Says
JUUL LABS: Faces American Falls Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces ISTCS Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Faces Preston Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Glenns Ferry Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Gooding School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Hagerman School Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis in Idaho
JUUL LABS: Lewiston School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Bonneville Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Marsing School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Idaho
JUUL LABS: Middleton Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Idaho
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Sugar Salem Claims
K.E.S. CONSTRUCTION: Case Management Plan in Gomez Suit Approved
KENTUCKY: Sixth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Rhoades v. DOC
L'OREAL USA: Hicks Sues Over Mascara Product's Harmful Component
L'OREAL USA: Waterproof Mascara Has PFAS, Class Action Alleges
LEISURE COLLECTIVE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIGHTS LACQUER: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LITTLETON COIN: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOGAN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Following Hacking Incident
LUBRICANT STORE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
MASTERCARD INC: GBP2.7BB Added to Claims in Interchange Fees Suit
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Issues in Oregon Laborers Suit Fixed
MED1CARE LTD: Brank Sues Over Home Healthcare Staff's Unpaid OT
META PLATFORMS: Vincent Wong Reminds of May 9 Deadline
MRS BPO: Waggett Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MULLINS FOOD: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
NABORS COMPLETION: Ronquillo's Attorneys Awarded $341K in Fees
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Goodell Must Avoid Forced Arbitration of Case
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Santos Suit Removed to D. Rhode Island
NEW JERSEY: Settles Incarcerated Students' IDEA Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Black and Latinx High School Students' Suit
OHIO: Approval of Brush's Bid to Dismiss Nalls Suit Recommended
OK FOODS: Must Face Data Breach Class Action in Arkansas
PEABODY ENERGY: Judge Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: All Claims in UFCW Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
PRETTY WOMEN: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
R.J. DOUGHERTY ASSOCIATES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Henderson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of May 6 Deadline
SALVATION ARMY: Clancy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SALVATION ARMY: Geiser Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SHATTUCK LABS: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 1 Deadline
SOCLEAN INC: Faces Bailey Suit Over Harmful CPAP Cleaning Device
STANDARD LITHIUM: Standard Lithium Reminds of March 28 Deadline
SUTTER HEALTH: Averts Class Action Over Anticompetitive Conduct
TASKUS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 25 Deadline
TRADER JOE'S: Fails to Provide Timely Wages, Acevedo Suit Says
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Vagvala Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
ULTIMATE KRONOS: Faces Data Security Class Action in California
UNITED AIRLINES: Yustman Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
UNITED STATES: Diaz Files Suit in S.D. New York
VANGUARD GROUP: Investors Sue Over Alleged Massive Tax Bills
W SERVICES GROUP: Garcia Sues Over Cleaners' Unpaid Wages
[*] Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss Consumer Arbitration Studies
[*] Class Action Remains Underutilized by Consumers in Kerala
[*] Madison County to Rejoin Class Action Against Opioid Companies
[*] Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Forced Arbitration Clause
[*] U.S. Chamber of Commerce Strongly Opposes H.R. 963
*********
2833 DECATUR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hoyos Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Hoyos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Filippo Milio,
Carmelo Milio, Dominique Milio, 2833 Decatur Avenue LLC, Falco
Realty Inc., Trion Real Estate Management LLC, and Trion Holdings
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01982 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2022)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law and supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed as a superintendent at the Defendants'
Decatur Ave. Property, from March 2018 through and including
December 15, 2021.
The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to provide proper
minimum, overtime, and spread-of-hours compensation, failed to
furnish accurate wage notices and wage statements, and failed to
pay timely wages.
2833 Decatur Avenue LLC owns, operates and/or controls a property
located at 2833 Decatur Avenue, Bronx, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
3M COMPANY: Gavin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gavin and Susan Gavin, his wife, and other similarly situated
v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company);
AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00656-RMG
(D.S.C., March 2, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Kevin Gavin regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Mohammed Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Kazim Mohammed, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE;, Case No. 2:22-cv-00657-RMG (D.S.C., March 2, 2022), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.
This action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that
were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds.
AFFF compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly
known as "PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"),
and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with
PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade
organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as
fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds
are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create
a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.
AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming
substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with
fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an
aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams. The manufacturing
processes involved in this action are asserted to have used
fluorocarbon surfactants which are believed to include PFOS and
PFOA (and/or other per fluorinated compounds known as "PFC"' are
also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in
PFOS and PFOA).
The Plaintiff joined the US Army in 1987 and was subsequently
assigned to Fort Hood, TX (2005-2008). At all times relevant,
Plaintiff lived/worked on Post at Fort Hood using and drinking the
water. Fort Hood is a Post with PFAS contamination. In 2018,
Mohammed was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and commenced on-going
medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention. As known by
Defendants, thyroid disease is a disease linked to PFAS
contamination. Mohammed did not discover that PFAS was a cause of
the harm until approximately Winter 2020, when he saw internet
information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Army, who during his service
was stationed at Fort Hood, a military installation identified as
being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals which are the
subject of this action.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (760) 479-5404
Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Phone: (978) 458-0507
Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (800) 934-2921
Email: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Turner Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00860-RMG
(D.S.C., March 15, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his alleged exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Vandercook Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH VANDERCOOK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00862-RMG
(D.S.C., March 15, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition due to
inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with blood cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
A & H SPORTSWEAR: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A & H Sportswear Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. A & H Sportswear Co.,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02055 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A & H Sportswear -- https://ahsporting.com/ -- is a clothing store
in Stockertown, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ABA LOVE: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aba Love LLC. The
case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Aba Love LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02056 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aba Love LLC is an entity registered at Kings county located in
Monsey, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on March 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of all purchasers of Acutus common stock between May
13, 2021 and November 11, 2021, inclusive.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Acutus, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/acutus-medical-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24591&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Acutus includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) a
material percentage of the Company's AcQMap imaging and mapping
systems under evaluation had been randomly installed at sites with
little, if any, consideration given to whether the healthcare
providers at the selected locations were likely to adopt, or
desire, the Company's products; (b) a material percentage of the
AcQMap systems under evaluation had been installed in locations
where the Company did not possess the infrastructure necessary to
appropriately educate, train, and support medical service providers
on the system's operations; (c) as a result of (a) and (b) above,
defendants were in the process of designing a strategic plan to
terminate and relocate approximately 20% of then-existing AcQMap
systems evaluation arrangements; (d) the Company's management
discussion and analysis was materially false and misleading and
failed to disclose that the termination and relocation of
approximately 20% of existing AcQMap systems evaluation
arrangements was reasonably likely to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's 2021 financial results; and (e) the
Company's risk factor discussions were materially false and
misleading and made reference to potential risks without disclosing
that such risks were then-existing or adequately describing the
specific nature of the risks then facing the Company.
DEADLINE: April 18, 2022
Aggrieved Acutus investors only have until April 18, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Affirm Holdings, Inc.
("Affirm Holdings, Inc." or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AFRM) of a
class action securities lawsuit.
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
Affirm Holdings, Inc. investors who were adversely affected by
alleged securities fraud. This lawsuit is on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Affirm Holdings, Inc.
securities on February 10, 2022 after the Company sent a Tweet
concerning its Second Quarter 2022 financial results at
approximately 1:15 p.m. EST. Follow the link below to get more
information and be contacted by a member of our team:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/affirm-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24765&wire=4
AFRM investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, on February 10,
2022 at approximately 1:15 p.m., Affirm issued a Tweet from its
official account in which the Company disclosed certain metrics
from its second quarter 2022 financial results. The Tweet, which
was published prior to the Company's planned release of its
financial results, portrayed a highly successful quarter, which
included an increase in revenue of 77%. This caused Affirm's share
price to spike nearly 10% in intra-day trading. The Tweet was
materially misleading, in that it omitted to disclose the full
details of Affirm's second quarter financial results. Affirm
deleted the Tweet and released its full second quarter financial
results ahead of schedule. The full financial results were
lackluster -- with the Company posting a loss of $0.57 per share,
compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Affirm Holdings, Inc. during
the relevant time frame, you have until April 29, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share
in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of May 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. ("Akebia" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: AKBA) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-01411, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Akebia securities
between June 28, 2018 and September 2, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Akebia
securities during the Class Period, you have until May 13, 2022 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
Akebia is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of renal therapeutics for
patients with kidney diseases. The Company's lead investigational
product candidate is vadadustat, an oral therapy, which is in Phase
3 development for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney
disease ("CKD") in dialysis-dependent and non-dialysis dependent
("NDD") adult patients.
Akebia's Phase 3 clinical programs for vadadustat include, among
others, the PRO2TECT program in NDD-CKD patients with anemia (the
"PRO2TECT Program"). The PRO2TECT Program's primary safety endpoint
was defined as non-inferiority of vadadustat versus darbepoetin
alfa in time to first occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular
events ("MACE").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) vadadustat was not as safe in treating NDD-CKD
patients with anemia as Defendants had represented; (ii) as a
result, Defendants overstated the PRO2TECT Program's clinical
prospects; (iii) accordingly, Defendants also overstated
vadadustat's overall commercial and regulatory prospects; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
On September 3, 2020, Akebia issued a press release announcing
"top-line results" from the PRO2TECT Program, disclosing that
"[v]adadustat did not meet the primary safety endpoint of the
PRO2TECT program, defined as non-inferiority of vadadustat versus
darbepoetin alfa in time to first occurrence of [MACE.]"
On this news, Akebia's common stock price fell $7.35 per share, or
73.5%, to close at $2.65 per share on September 3, 2020.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
ALL MY SONS: Class Notice & Consent to Opt-In in Vega Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jose A. Vega, Plaintiff v. All My Sons Business
Development LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-00284-TUC-RCC
(D. Ariz.), Judge Raner C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona approved the proposed Notice of Collective
Action Lawsuit and Consent to Opt-In to Lawsuit.
On March 8, 2022, the Court held oral argument for the limited
purpose of defining the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
Action and Rule 23 Unpaid Wages Class Action. The parties presented
their arguments as to the applicable statutes of limitations at the
notice stage and the eligibility dates for both the conditionally
certified collective and the certified class action.
I. FLSA Collective Action
On Feb. 1, 2022, the Court conditionally certified an FLSA
collective action based on Plaintiff Jose A. Vega's allegations
that Defendants All My Sons Business Development LLC, All My Sons
Moving & Storage of Tucson LLC, and All My Sons Moving & Storage of
Phoenix LLC undercompensate helpers in violation of the FLSA.
Nonetheless, the Court noted that it was not in a position to
"specifically define eligible employment dates for that collective"
without additional briefing from the parties. Similarly, the Court
required additional argument regarding the applicable FLSA statute
of limitations. It ordered oral argument to resolve these
questions.
The Plaintiff argues that the Court should permit notice of the
FLSA collective action to the broadest class of putative opt-in
plaintiffs possible because the statute of limitations continued to
run while the motion to certify was pending and will continue to
run for each putative opt-in plaintiff until they have consented to
join the action. He seeks to apply a three-year statute of
limitations despite a lack of specific evidence at this stage that
the Defendants acted to willfully violate the FLSA.
"At this initial stage," the Plaintiff asserts, "there is simply
not sufficient evidence upon which to make a merits determination
as to whether a two or three year limitations period should apply."
Nonetheless, he contends that he has made sufficient "allegations"
of willfulness to support application of a three-year period at the
notice stage, with the possibility that the Court will re-evaluate
the appropriate statute of limitations after discovery.
The Plaintiff proposes that notice be sent to all individuals
employed as helpers at All My Sons Tucson any time between July 2,
2017 and the date notice is sent. He asserts "a starting date of
July 2, 2017 (3 years back from the date the Plaintiff's Complaint
was filed) allows for the most inclusive notice possible."
The Defendants argue that a two-year statute of limitations is
appropriate because the Plaintiff has not presented "any evidence
or facts" that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA. They appear
to propose three different time frames, first asserting, "a statute
of limitations period of two years preceding the date of the
Court's order on conditional certification should apply," then
stating, "the limitations period for the FLSA collective action
should only be two years from the date the consents are filed," and
finally noting, "the notice should be limited to helpers who worked
at All My Sons Tucson during the two-year period prior to the
notice being sent."
Judge Collins finds that a three-year statute of limitations is
appropriate at the notice stage. He says, the Plaintiff has alleged
willfulness and has put forth sufficient allegations that the
Defendants willfully implemented the helper compensation policies.
The question of whether these policies violate the FLSA is the
ultimate question for decision in the case. Nonetheless, in line
with other courts in the district, Judge Collins will approve the
broadest notice possible on conditional certification. The
applicable statute of limitations and whether a finding of
willfulness is supported by the evidence can be reevaluated on
summary judgment or decertification. Accordingly, the potential
opt-in plaintiffs for the FLSA Collective Action include all
individuals employed as helpers at All My Sons Moving & Storage of
Tucson between July 2, 2017 and the date that notice is sent.
On March 7, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Notice Regarding FLSA
Collective Action Notice and Consent Form. In accordance with the
Court's Feb. 1, 2022 order, the parties submitted the agreed upon
Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent to Opt-In Form.
Judge Collins will approve this agreed upon language. The only
information absent from these proposed documents is the eligibility
period for the collective. As he indicated, this period will extend
from July 2, 2017 to the date that notice is sent.
Furthermore, as the Court previously held, the Plaintiff is
authorized to send the approved notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs simultaneously via first-class mail, email, and text
message. "Any opt-in plaintiffs who choose to participate will file
their consents no later than 90 days from the date notice is sent."
Finally, the Defendants "shall produce to Vega, within 10 days of
the date of the order, a computer-readable data file containing the
names, last known mailing addresses, last known email addresses,
last known phone numbers, and dates of employment for all potential
members of the collective action."
II. Rule 23 Class Action - Unpaid Wages Class
On Feb. 1, 2022, the Court also certified the Unpaid Wages Class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). It concluded,
however, that it required additional clarification to properly
define the eligible employment dates for the class. Thus, the Court
held oral argument to resolve the open question.
The Plaintiff argues the Unpaid Wages Class should include all
individuals who worked as helpers between July 2, 2017 and the date
notice is sent. Although his various claims under Arizona law have
different statutes of limitations, the Plaintiff urges the Court to
apply a notice period of three years for a willful violation of
A.R.S. Section 23-364(H). He argues that "this would also avoid the
need for two Rule 23 notice periods -- one for unpaid regular time
claims (one year) and one for minimum wage claims (three years)."
Additionally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to postpone sending
notice of the Rule 23 class action until after the close of
discovery. To do otherwise would, he asserts, risk limiting the
scope of the class and cut off relief to potential class members.
He further contends that early notice would cause unnecessary
confusion if the class were decertified later. If the Court prefers
to send Rule 23 notice immediately, the Plaintiff asks for 14 days
to file a motion for notice approval.
The Defendants argue that only a two-year statute of limitations
should apply to the Rule 23 class because A.R.S. Section 23-364(H)
imposes a two-year limit unless the violation was willful. For the
same reasons that they argue the Court cannot conclude any FLSA
violation was willful at this stage, the Defendants argue that
there was no willful violation of Arizona wage laws. The Defendants
further argue that the Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that
would entitle him to equitable tolling.
Judge Collins, after conducting an in-depth analysis as required by
Rule 23, certified the Unpaid Wages Class under Rule 23(b)(3) to
seek to recover unpaid and untimely wages to the extent they may be
owed pursuant to A.R.S. Sections 23-350-65. He, having considered
the parties' arguments regarding the applicable statute of
limitations, now defines the Unpaid Wages Class to include
individuals who worked as helpers at All My Sons Moving & Storage
of Tucson between July 2, 2017 and the date notice is sent.
As with the FLSA claims, Judge Collins finds that a three-year
period from the date of the complaint is appropriate where, in the
case, the Plaintiff has made allegations of willfulness but there
is not sufficient evidence currently before the Court to make a
merits determination on willfulness. He does not find it necessary,
however, to postpone notice of the class action until the close of
discovery. Instead, to facilitate the timely notice that is
required, he will grant the Plaintiff's request for 14 days to file
a Motion for Notice Approval.
Judge Collins appoints Patricia Nicole Syverson and Ty Derek
Frankel of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC to represent the
Unpaid Wages Class. Upon moving for class certification, the
Plaintiff provided the Court with information regarding the
experience and qualifications of Patricia Nicole Syverson, Ty Derek
Frankel, and the firm Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC in
litigating class action lawsuits as well as wage and hour
litigation. The Court previously indicated that it is satisfied,
based on this information, that the Plaintiff's counsel has the
requisite experience, knowledge, and resources to litigate these
claims. Moreover, Judge Collins finds that the Plaintiff's counsel
has done significant work identifying and investigating the
claims.
II. Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Collins approved the proposed
Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent to Opt-In to
Lawsuit.
Within 10 days of the date of the Order, the Defendants will
produce to the Plaintiff a computer-readable data file containing
the names, last known mailing addresses, last known email
addresses, last known phone numbers, and dates of employment for
all potential opt-in plaintiffs in the collective action, including
all individuals who worked as helpers for All My Sons Moving &
Storage of Tucson between July 2, 2017 and the date notice is
sent.
The Plaintiff is authorized to send the approved notice to
potential opt-in plaintiffs simultaneously via first-class mail,
email, and text message.
The Unpaid Wages Class is defined to include individuals who worked
as helpers at All My Sons Moving & Storage of Tucson between July
2, 2017 and the date notice is sent.
Judge Collins appointed Patricia Nicole Syverson and Ty Derek
Frankel of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC to represent the
Unpaid Wages Class.
Within 14 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff must file a
Motion for Notice Approval with regard to the Rule 23 Unpaid Wages
Class.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8a6ezj from Leagle.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery May Proceed in Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an order issued by a Seattle, Washington court,
discovery and third-party subpoenas served by the plaintiffs may
proceed in the privacy suit concerning Amazon's virtual assistant
"Alexa." Previously, the two Amazon entity defendants argued for a
stay, contending that it would be an undue burden to respond to
discovery requests related to claims that may be dismissed and that
the subpoenas seek information that could be obtained from Amazon
itself and therefore aim to harass its business partners.
As Law Street Media reported last June, the putative class action
alleges that the smart speaker technology illegally records people
in the vicinity, including both registered and unregistered users
without their knowledge, consent, or both.
The four-page decision comes while Amazon's motion to dismiss
awaits a ruling. The e-commerce company moved to dismiss the
privacy, consumer protection, and wiretap claims last October,
leveling myriad pleading and merits defenses, including that users
consented to the recordings, while unregistered users implicitly
consented.
Among other arguments, Amazon contended that the plaintiffs'
Federal Wiretap Act claims fail "because defendants were the
intended recipient of the communications." Their Federal Stored
Communications Act claims reportedly fail for want of plausible
allegations showing that "Alexa is an electronic communication
service, that the recordings are in electronic storage, or that
they were divulged to a third party," the court recounted in its
order.
Judge Robert S. Lasnik opined that though a cursory review of the
parties' papers raises "‘a real question whether' portions of
plaintiffs' claims will survive," he found that Amazon did not
demonstrate that a stay is warranted. The court determined that a
stay would prejudice the plaintiffs because discovery they seek
will purportedly bolster allegations that the defendants challenge
as conclusory, like the allegation that Amazon disclosed Alexa
recordings to third parties. In addition, the court found it
material that the parties have less than ten months to complete
fact discovery.
As for the requested third-party subpoena protective order, Judge
Lasnik held that the defendants' objections were too vague. The
court said that Amazon pointed to no specific request as
duplicative, while the plaintiffs showed that at least some of the
information sought was within the sole control of the third parties
subpoenaed. "Nor do defendants provide any facts suggesting that
the discovery requests annoy, embarrass, oppress, or impose an
undue burden or expense on the third parties, other than to repeat
that production may not be necessary if defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted," the opinion added.
Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman& Dowd LLP are
interim co-lead class counsel and Fenwick & West LLP represents
Amazon. [GN]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Eifort Sues Over Unpaid Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Eifort, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00363-ROS (D. Ariz., March 9, 2022) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs as a result of
Defendant's policies and practice of failing to pay proper overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendat as an hourly-paid access
team member from April of 2021 until December of 2021.
Amazon Services LLC is a Seattle, Washington-based company which
offers many of the Web service platforms that multinational
technology company Amazon.com offers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
AMWAY CORP: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amway Corp. The case
is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Amway Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-02064
(S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Amway -- http://www.amwayglobal.com/-- is an American multi-level
marketing company that sells health, beauty, and home care
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
AUSTRALIA: Indigenous Workers Urged to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that an outreach
program has begun to investigate First Nations people's rights to a
class action filed in the Northern Territory Federal Court last
year.
Shine Lawyers has urged Indigenous workers who were subjected to
unfair work conditions without pay in the 1900s to sign up for a
class action to seek compensation for work throughout the 20th
century. The class action, which was filed on behalf of workers in
June last year, is open to anyone who had their wages stolen,
including descendants of deceased workers and their estates.
The legislation, which was implemented to control the employment
and wages of Indigenous Australians, operated under the Aboriginal
Ordinance 1911 (Cth), the Welfare Ordinance 1953 (Cth) and their
subsequent amendments.
Those impacted were indigenous workers who toiled between 1933 and
1971 who were employed in many different industries and held roles
such as stockmen, farmhands, laundry assistants, kitchen hands,
labourers and domestic workers.
Class actions practice leader Tristan Gaven said that the firm
would travel to the Northern Territory in order to ensure outreach
to those affected.
"Our investigations into these practices have revealed that state
and Commonwealth governments held these wages in trust accounts
which have never been accessed by those who actually earned the
money. It's time these workers and their surviving relatives have
what was always theirs," he said.
"We're proud to be on the ground, connecting with those impacted
over coming weeks, and chasing both acknowledgement and closure for
an injustice that should never have occurred," he said.
This follows a win for Shine Lawyers against Worley, whereby
shareholders were successfully able to appeal the Federal Court's
initial dismissal of the claim. Shareholders were seeking
compensation for shares acquired between August and November 2013
and alleged that Worley failed to inform the market of its true
earnings outlook and did not have reasonable grounds for its FY2013
profit forecasts.
Shine class actions practice leader Craig Allsopp said that the
court has ordered that the matter be remitted to a single judge for
a hearing to determine further issues, including costs of the
initial trial. [GN]
BARREIRO CONCRETE: Arias Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ARIAS and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
BARREIRO CONCRETE CORPORATION and AMERICO BARREIRO, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20722 (S.D. Fla., March 10, 2022) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime hours, liquidated damages, retaliatory
damages, and any other relief as allowable by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly employee from approximately 1987 to March 02,
2022, or more than 35 years. He had multiple duties as a production
employee and as a construction laborer.
Barreiro Concrete Corporation is a concrete products manufacturer
and construction contractor based in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
BORAL ROOFING: Meraz-Valencia Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Meraz-Valencia, on behalf of himself, the putative Class
members and other similarly situated individuals v. BORAL ROOFING,
LLC, WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING, LLC, BORAL INDUSTRIES, INC., ROYAL
BUILDING PRODUCTS (USA), INC., WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00491-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.,
March 14, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of California wage and hour laws stemming from the Defendants'
policies and practices of: failing to pay Plaintiff and putative
Class members minimum wage for all hours worked; failing to pay
Plaintiff and putative Class members overtime wages; failing to
provide or make available to Plaintiff and putative class members
the meal breaks to which they are entitled by law, and failing to
pay premium compensation payment for non-compliant meal breaks;
failing to provide Plaintiff and putative Class members with
accurate itemized wage statements; and engaging in unfair business
practices.
Although the the Plaintiff's shifts varied in length, the Plaintiff
usually worked between 8 to 11 hours or more per shift, 5 shifts
per week, or at times, 6 shifts per week. The Plaintiff's weekly
hours varied, but on average, Plaintiff worked 40 to 55 hours per
week, or more.
The Defendants routinely require Plaintiff and putative Class
members to perform work off-the-clock and without compensation.
This includes but is not limited to Defendants requiring Plaintiff
and putative Class members to wait in line, to go through
temperature checks and to answer COVID-19 screening questions prior
to clocking in for the start of their shift. As a result of these
policies and/or practices, Plaintiff and putative Class members are
denied compensation for overtime, which they are lawfully owed
resulting from the off-the-clock work in excess of 8 hours per day
and 40 hours per week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for various projects
as a helper from October 1, 2018, to July 12, 2021.
Boral Roofing is a nationwide manufacturer of clay and concrete
roof tiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Caroline N. Cohen, Esq.
Philippe M. Gaudard, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
ccohen@schneiderwallace.com
pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com
BROOKS SPORTS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooks Sports, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Brooks Sports, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02107 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brooks Sports, Inc., also known as Brooks Running --
https://www.brooksrunning.com/en_us -- is an American sports
equipment company that designs and markets high-performance men's
and women's sneakers, clothing, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CENTURY INTERNATIONAL: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century International
Arms, Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Century International
Arms, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02103 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Century International Arms -- https://www.centuryarms.com/ -- is an
importer and manufacturer of firearms that is based in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CHRISTMAS TREE SHOPS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christmas Tree Shops,
LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Christmas Tree Shops, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01384-LDH-JRC (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Christmas Tree Shops -- https://www.christmastreeshops.com/ --
offers home goods and seasonal decor all year-round.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
CITIBANK NA: N.D. Illinois Denies Arbitration Bid in Collins Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANNY COLLINS, Plaintiff v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-00008 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John F. Kness of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.
I. Introduction
After receiving numerous unsolicited calls from his credit card
company, Plaintiff Collins sued Defendant Citibank for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
Defendant contends, however, that the case belongs in arbitration.
According to the Defendant, the parties' relationship is governed
by a Card Agreement that provides for the arbitration of any claims
"arising out of or related to his Account." The Defendant has moved
to compel arbitration and stay the case.
Along with his Response to the Defendant's Motion to Compel, the
Plaintiff attached a declaration saying that he "never received the
Card Agreement." Because the Plaintiff's denial that he received
the Card Agreement raises a genuine question of material fact as to
whether the Card Agreement (and thus the arbitration provision)
governs the dispute, the Court must resolve that question before it
can determine the propriety of arbitration.
II. Background
Plaintiff Collins signed up for a Citibank MasterCard in April
2020. Starting in July 2020, he began receiving prerecorded calls
on his cellphone from Defendant Citibank. Despite the Plaintiff's
instruction to stop contacting him, the Defendant continued sending
prerecorded messages -- as many as 48 times -- between July and
December 2020. Those calls resulted in a variety of harms to the
Plaintiff, including "invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion," and they
"inconvenienced the Plaintiff and caused disruption to her daily
life." On Jan. 4, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the purported class
action against the Defendant for allegedly violating the TCPA, 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b) (Count I), as well as regulations promulgated
under the TCPA, 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200 (Count II).
The Defendant asserts that the parties' relationship is governed by
the Card Agreement and that contract requires the case to be
arbitrated. Indeed, it is undisputed that the Card Agreement
provides that "you Plaintiff or we Defendant may arbitrate any
claim, dispute or controversy arising out of or related to your
Account, a previous Account or our relationship (called
'Claims')."
Based on the Card Agreement, the Defendant has moved to compel
arbitration and to stay the case during the pendency of
arbitration. So far, so good -- except that the Plaintiff contends
that he never actually received the Card Agreement when he signed
up for his credit card. The Plaintiff argues that, because he never
received the Card Agreement, he cannot be bound to its terms.
III. Discussion
The Defendant argues that the "Plaintiff's credit card account is
subject to written arbitration agreements contained in the terms
and conditions governing the accounts." The Plaintiff argues that
he should not be bound by the terms of the Card Agreement because
he did not receive it. The Plaintiff's sworn denial thus raises a
genuine dispute such that the Court cannot compel arbitration at
this time.
To develop the record on whether the Plaintiff received the Card
Agreement, which may demonstrate that arbitration is required in
the case, the parties should engage in discovery limited, for the
time being at least, to that issue. Once the factual record is more
fully developed, the Court can assess, in consultation with the
parties, how next to proceed with the case.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the current record, and drawing all inferences in the
Plaintiff's favor, Judge Kness concludes that there is a genuine
dispute as to whether the Plaintiff received the Card Agreement.
Because that dispute must be addressed before the Court can assess
the parties' other arguments -- including which state's laws govern
the dispute, whether the Card Agreement's arbitration provision is
substantively or procedurally unconscionable, and whether the Card
Agreement's application in this case is unconstitutional -- the
Defendant's motion to compel is denied without prejudice.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer about how to conduct
limited discovery on the issue of whether the Plaintiff received
the Card Agreement. Discovery is stayed in all other respects.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8jxnjx from
Leagle.com.
CLARIVATE PLC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of March 25 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 14 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Clarivate Plc ("Clarivate" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CLVT) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased
Clarivate stock between February 26, 2021 and December 27, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clarivate maintained
defective disclosure controls and procedures as a result of a
material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting;
(ii) the foregoing material weakness was not limited to how
Clarivate accounted for warrants; (iii) as a result, Clarivate
failed to properly account for an equity plan included in its
acquisition of CPA Global; (iv) accordingly Clarivate was
reasonably likely to restate one or more of its previously issued
financial statements following its acquisition of CPA Global; and
(v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Clarivate
should contact the Firm prior to the March 25, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
COBIAN CORPORATION: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cobian Corporation.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cobian Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-02105 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cobian -- https://www.cobianusa.com/ -- has been a leader in
innovation in sandal design and development for almost twenty
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
COLLECTORS COINS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collectors Coins &
Jewelry. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Collectors Coins &
Jewelry, Case No. 1:22-cv-02097 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Collectors Coins and Jewelry -- https://www.collectors1946.com/ --
is a family owned and operated business with over seventy years of
experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
COLT'S MANUFACTURING: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colt's Manufacturing
IP Holding Company LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Colt's Manufacturing IP Holding Company LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02102
(S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Colt's Manufacturing Company -- https://www.colt.com/ -- offers
firearms, handguns, pistols, rifles, revolvers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CONNECTICUT: Faces Prison Debt Class Suit From Former Inmate
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Dempsey, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that an
inmate and a former prisoner filed a federal lawsuit on March 14
against Gov. Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong in hopes
of getting rid of a state law that requires former inmates to pay
for the time they spent in jail, according to the American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation of Connecticut.
They also are seeking the court's permission to make it a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of tens of thousands of present and
former incarcerated people, said Meghan Holden, an ACLU
spokeswoman.
Every inmate owes hundreds of dollars for each day behind bars,
said the ACLU in a news release. Lawyers from the ACLU and from
Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff LLC represent Michael Llorens
and former prisoner Teresa Beatty on behalf of everyone owing
prison debt to the state because they were incarcerated on or after
Oct. 1, 1997 -- about 30,000 people, according to the lawsuit.
The suit challenges Connecticut's prison debt law under the
excessive fines clause of the U.S. Constitution, the ACLU said.
Elizabeth Benton, a spokeswoman for Tong, said staff members were
reviewing the lawsuit and could not comment on its specific claims.
State statutes require the state to recover the cost of
incarceration, she said, and the job of placing liens on former
prisoners falls to the Department of Administrative Services. There
is a proposal at the legislature to repeal the statute, she said.
"The Office of the Attorney General becomes involved in certain
contested cases but has had no involvement in the specific cases
involving Ms. Beatty or Mr. Llorens," she added.
Beatty, of Stamford, was in prison on drug charges from 2000-2002,
the ACLU said. Today, she is a certified nursing assistant, a
mother, a grandmother and a caretaker for her older brother who is
disabled. In 2020, her mother died, leaving her part of the money
from eventual sale of the home where Beatty, her brother and her
family live.
"Once that home is sold, Ms. Beatty will desperately need her
inheritance to put a roof over her and her family's heads," the
organization said. But the state "came after Ms. Beatty, demanding
$83,762.26 for her time in custody, including when she was
incarcerated pre-trial because she could not afford bail."
Llorens, who is serving time for burglary, "owes the government of
Connecticut an astonishing $272,655 in prison debt for his
three-year sentence," the lawsuit said.
Under Connecticut's prison debt law, the state charges people $249
dollars a day, or $90,885 a year, for the cost of their
incarceration, the ACLU said, adding that the amount is more than
what an in-state student would owe for 2.5 years of attendance at
the University of Connecticut, including housing, food and books.
The debt follows the former prisoners for years, decimating
inheritances and even settlements from lawsuits filed against the
state by inmates who were harmed in prison, the ACLU said.
"Connecticut's prison debt laws inflict a form of extreme
punishment that locks people, especially Black and Latinx people,
into unbelievable debt that can haunt them and their loved ones
even after their deaths," said Dan Barrett, ACLU's legal director
and an attorney in the case. "The law also rewards the state's own
bad behavior by collecting money from payouts in prison brutality
lawsuits and funneling that money right into the general fund.
Attorney General Tong and Governor Lamont should immediately cease
using these statutes."
David Slossberg of Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg, & Knuff said,
"Connecticut's prison debt law flies in the face of the idea that
someone has paid their debt to society after lawfully serving their
prison sentence. It is unconstitutional and morally abhorrent.
Anyone caring about social justice in our state should care that
this law is being used every day."
Beatty said the case is "not just about me, it's about the tens of
thousands of people coming out after me. I am speaking out because
I don't want anyone else to go through what I'm going through."
[GN]
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Court Stays Williams Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2022, that on
September 30, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware by Lauren Williams, captioned "Lauren Williams v. G.
Leonard Baker, et al.," Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01830. The
complaint named the company's board of directors, Chief Executive
Officer and current Chief Business Officer as defendants, and the
company as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duty, violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act,
insider selling, misappropriation of insider information and waste
of corporate assets and seeks damages in an amount to be proved at
trial.
On August 24, 2021, the court granted the company's motion in part,
but also denied it in part, which means certain of plaintiff's
claims may proceed to discovery. On September 30, 2021, the case
was further stayed pending a resolution of another litigation,
"Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-01372-LHK."
Corcept is a commercial-stage company engaged in the discovery and
development of drugs that treat severe metabolic, oncologic and
neuropsychiatric disorders by modulating the effects of the hormone
cortisol.
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Faces Melucci Suit in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2022, that a
purported securities class action complaint filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
March 14, 2019 (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK) named the company and certain of
the company's executive officers as defendants asserting violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and alleges that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse
facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects.
The complaint asserts a putative class period extending from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees. On October 7, 2019, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff's
consolidated complaint was filed on December 6, 2019.
Corcept Therapeutics moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
January 27, 2020. Rather than oppose the company's motion to
dismiss, on March 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff withdrew its
consolidated complaint and filed a second amended complaint. On May
11, 2020, Corcept Therapeutics moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On November 20, 2020, the Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss, while granting plaintiff leave to file a third
amended complaint, which plaintiff did on December 21, 2020. On
February 19, 2021, Corcept Therapeutics moved to dismiss this third
amended complaint. Plaintiff filed its opposition to the company's
motion on April 20, 2021 and Corcept Therapeutics filed the
company's reply on June 4, 2021.
Corcept is a commercial-stage company engaged in the discovery and
development of drugs that treat severe metabolic, oncologic and
neuropsychiatric disorders by modulating the effects of the hormone
cortisol.
COSTA DEL MAR: Davis Appeals Ruling in Smith's Illegal Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party JOHN DAVIS filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled TROY SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTA DEL
MAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01011-J-32-TJC-JRK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The lawsuit seeks damages as a result of the Defendant's practice
of charging its customers an illegal fee to process its Lifetime
Warranty against manufacturer's defects in connection with the sale
of sunglasses.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan
of the Middle District of Florida, granted in part, deferred in
part, and denied in part:
(i) the Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses and Conditional Request for Incentive Awards
to Class Representatives; and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.
After several years of litigation and extensive negotiation, three
class action cases against Defendant Costa Del Mar have culminated
in the settlement that came before the Court for final approval.
The Plaintiffs in the three lawsuits that have been resolved
through the consolidated settlement allege that Costa charged
unlawful fees and related upcharges for repairs to, and purchase
of, Costa sunglasses.
For the purposes of settlement only and under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court certified the
litigation as a class action on behalf of the following classes:
(1) Florida Purchase Class, or all citizens of Florida who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses from July 28, 2013 to Jan. 31,
2018; (2) Florida Repair Class, or all citizens of Florida who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and were
charged a fee by Costa from July 28, 2012 through the date of the
Court's final Order, to repair or replace their sunglasses damaged
by accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse; (3) Nationwide Repair
Class, or all United States citizens, excluding Floridians, who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and were
charged a repair fee from April 3, 2015 through the date of the
Court's final Order, to repair or replace their Costa plano
sunglasses damaged by accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse;
and (4) Warranty Class, or all United States citizens who purchased
non-prescription Costa sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2016, and paid a
warranty fee to Costa for repair or replacement of their sunglasses
damaged by a manufacturer's defect from Aug. 20, 2013 through the
date of the Court's Final Order. The Class Counsel estimates that
combined, the classes include 2.1 million claims.
Mr. Davis seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Troy Smith, et al. v. John
Davis, et al., Case No. 22-10667, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on March 1, 2022.[BN]
COSTA DEL MAR: Miorelli Appeals Ruling in Smith's Illegal Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Parties Mitchell Miorelli, et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TROY SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01011-J-32-TJC-JRK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.
The lawsuit seeks damages as a result of the Defendant's practice
of charging its customers an illegal fee to process its Lifetime
Warranty against manufacturer's defects in connection with the sale
of sunglasses.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan
of the Middle District of Florida, granted in part, deferred in
part, and denied in part:
(i) the Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses and Conditional Request for Incentive Awards
to Class Representatives; and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.
After several years of litigation and extensive negotiation, three
class action cases against Defendant Costa Del Mar have culminated
in the settlement that came before the Court for final approval.
The Plaintiffs in the three lawsuits that have been resolved
through the consolidated settlement allege that Costa charged
unlawful fees and related upcharges for repairs to and purchase of
Costa sunglasses.
For the purposes of settlement only and under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court certified the
litigation as a class action on behalf of the following classes:
(1) Florida Purchase Class, or all citizens of Florida who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses from July 28, 2013 to Jan. 31,
2018; (2) Florida Repair Class, or all citizens of Florida who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and were
charged a fee by Costa from July 28, 2012 through the date of the
Court's final Order, to repair or replace their sunglasses damaged
by accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse; (3) Nationwide Repair
Class, or all United States citizens, excluding Floridians, who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and were
charged a repair fee from April 3, 2015 through the date of the
Court's final Order, to repair or replace their Costa plano
sunglasses damaged by accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse;
and (4) Warranty Class, or all United States citizens who purchased
non-prescription Costa sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2016, and paid a
warranty fee to Costa for repair or replacement of their sunglasses
damaged by a manufacturer's defect from Aug. 20, 2013 through the
date of the Court's Final Order. The Class Counsel estimates that
combined, the classes include 2.1 million claims.
Miorelli now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Troy Smith, et al. v. Mitchell
Miorelli, et al., Case No. 22-10663, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on March 1, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before March 22, 2022 as to Appellant Mitchell George Miorelli;
and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before April 5, 2022 as to Appellees Costa Del Mar, Inc. and Troy
Smith [BN]
Interested Parties-Appellants MITCHELL GEORGE MIORELLI, et al., are
represented by:
Sam Andrew Miorelli, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SAM MIORELLI, PA
4715 N Harbor City Blvd
Melbourne, FL 32935
Telephone: (352) 458-4092
- and -
Bradley G. Bodiford, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
233 E Bay St Ste 800
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 868-6355
- and -
Robert William Clore, Esq.
Mikell West, Esq.
BANDAS LAW FIRM, PC
802 N Carancahua Ste 1400
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 698-5200
- and -
John W. Davis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN DAVIS
3030 N Rocky Point Dr W Ste 150
Tampa, FL 33607
Telephone: (813) 533-1972
- and -
Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC ALAN ISAACSON
6580 Avenida Mirola
La Jolla, CA 92037-6231
Telephone: (858) 263-9581
- and -
Charles Benjamin Nutley, Esq.
C. BENJAMIN NUTLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
75-5915 Walua Rd
Kailua Kona, HI 96740
Telephone: (808) 238-8783
Plaintiffs-Appellees TROY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; BRENDAN C. HANEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and GERALD E. REED, IV,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Michael Manuel Gropper, Esq.
Peter Hargitai, Esq.
Laura Beard Renstrom, Esq.
Joshua H. Roberts, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
50 N Laura St Ste 3900
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 353-2000
Defendant-Appellee COSTA DEL MAR, INC., a Florida corporation, is
represented by:
Mark E. Anderson, Esq.
Jocelyn M. Mallette, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP - RALEIGH
434 Fayetteville St Ste 2600
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 755-6681
- and -
Sara F. Holladay, Esq.
Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
50 N Laura St Ste 3300
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 798-3200
- and -
Justin R. Optiz, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
2000 McKinney Ave Ste 1400
Dallas, TX 75201
COSTA DEL MAR: Valls Appeals Ruling in Smith's Illegal Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party AUSTIN VALLS filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled TROY SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTA DEL
MAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01011-J-32-TJC-JRK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The lawsuit seeks damages as a result of the Defendant's practice
of charging its customers an illegal fee to process its Lifetime
Warranty against manufacturer's defects in connection with the sale
of sunglasses.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan
of the Middle District of Florida, granted in part, deferred in
part, and denied in part:
(i) the Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses and Conditional Request for Incentive Awards
to Class Representatives; and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.
After several years of litigation and extensive negotiation, three
class action cases against Defendant Costa Del Mar have culminated
in the settlement that came before the Court for final approval.
The Plaintiffs in the three lawsuits that have been resolved
through the consolidated settlement allege that Costa charged
unlawful fees and related upcharges for repairs to, and purchase
of, Costa sunglasses.
For the purposes of settlement only and under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court certified the
litigation as a class action on behalf of the following classes:
(1) Florida Purchase Class, or all citizens of Florida who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses from July 28, 2013 to Jan. 31,
2018; (2) Florida Repair Class, or all citizens of Florida who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and were
charged a fee by Costa from July 28, 2012 through the date of the
Court's final Order, to repair or replace their sunglasses damaged
by accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse; (3) Nationwide Repair
Class, or all United States citizens, excluding Floridians, who
purchased Costa plano sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and were
charged a repair fee from April 3, 2015 through the date of the
Court's final Order, to repair or replace their Costa plano
sunglasses damaged by accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse;
and (4) Warranty Class, or all United States citizens who purchased
non-prescription Costa sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2016, and paid a
warranty fee to Costa for repair or replacement of their sunglasses
damaged by a manufacturer's defect from Aug. 20, 2013 through the
date of the Court's Final Order. The Class Counsel estimates that
combined, the classes include 2.1 million claims.
Valls seeks a review of the Court's ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Troy Smith, et al. v. Austin
Valls, et al., Case No. 22-10666, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on March 1, 2022.[BN]
CREDIT CONTROL: Thaller FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YAAKOV THALLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A
CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, Case No. CACE-22-002159, was removed
from the County Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Broward County, Florida Civil Division, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 15, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:22-cv-60559 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
Credit Control Services, Inc., doing business as Credit Collection
Services, is a debt collection agency, headquartered in Newton,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Chantel C. Wonder, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
Miami Tower
100 SE Second Street, Suite 3900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 428-5309
E-mail: cwonder@grsm.com
CUSIP GLOBAL: Faces Second Antirust Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Natale, writing for waterstechnology, reports that a second
class-action lawsuit was filed against Cusip Global Services (CGS),
the American Bankers Association (ABA), S&P Global, and FactSet for
alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and business
practice laws in New York and Connecticut, where FactSet is based,
as well as breach of contract. The suit, filed in the Southern
District of New York, names Hildene Capital Management, a
Connecticut-based asset manager focused on credit, as a plaintiff.
Law firm Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch [GN]
CUT GOLF: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cut Golf LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cut Golf LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02111
(S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cut Golf -- https://www.cutgolf.co/ -- offers premium quality
performance golf balls and golf apparel at a low and affordable
prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
D.R. HORTON: Lafayette Homebuyers File Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Advocate reports that D.R. Horton has built more than 1,700
homes in more than two dozen neighborhoods in Lafayette Parish
since 2009, according to local land records.
Many of those homes are located in popular developments, such as
the Village of River Ranch in Lafayette, Sugar Mill Pond in
Youngsville and Couret Farms near Carencro. There are also multiple
neighborhoods across the parish entirely constructed by D.R.
Horton.
The national construction company is the subject of what several
Louisiana attorneys hope will become a class action lawsuit against
D.R. Horton and one of its subcontractors. Together, the attorneys
allege that homes built by D.R. Horton after 2012 were not
constructed to withstand "normal and typical Louisiana weather."
Ten south Louisiana attorneys sued D.R. Horton and Bell Mechanical
Services in state court on behalf of a Youngsville family and
thousands of other homeowners in Louisiana. The attorneys, who
filed the lawsuit March 8 in the 19th Judicial District Court in
East Baton Rouge Parish, have asked for a judge to rule on whether
the case may proceed as a class action lawsuit.
D.R. Horton and subcontractor Bell Mechanical Services allegedly
"conspired together to intentionally mislead" Alicia and West
Dixon, of Youngsville, and other homebuyers in a "scheme of fraud
and racketeering" while installing and repairing HVAC systems in
the new homes, the attorneys said.
The lawsuit alleges that the Dixons' home was constructed with
improper attic ventilation and an improper air-conditioning system
that created a negative pressure environment in the home, which
draws warm, moist air inside.
D.R. Horton, which is known as "America's builder," has constructed
homes in several Lafayette Parish neighborhoods. Among those
include:
Acadian Lakes, Duson
Bayou Tortue Manor, Broussard
Belle Maison, Youngsville
Belle View, Lafayette
Cedar Creek, Lafayette
Centennial Village, Lafayette
Congress West, Lafayette
Country Lakes, Rayne
Couret Farms, Lafayette
Emerald Lake, Scott
Envie, Carencro
Fairgrounds North, Lafayette
Fieldview, Carencro
Grand Oaks, Lafayette
Laurel Grove, Youngsville
North Pointe, Lafayette
Northwood, Lafayette
Oak Springs, Carencro
Sugar Mill Pond, Youngsville
Sugar Ridge, Youngsville
Sunset Terrace, Sunset
Trinity Court, Lafayette
Verot Park, Youngsville
Village of River Ranch, Lafayette
Villas at Chateau Mirage, Lafayette
Woodlands Cove, Lafayette
The Dixons' home is located in Youngsville's Sugar Ridge
subdivision.
Two additional lawsuits against D.R. Horton originated in the same
neighborhood. Those state cases, which make similar accusations
against D.R. Horton, are currently working through the Lafayette
Parish court system.
Residents of that neighborhood have long complained about the
builder's construction quality. The Youngsville City Council even
temporarily halted new construction permits for D.R. Horton in 2014
as a result of those complaints. The council reinstated permits
soon afterward, saying a probe showed the construction company was
building homes that were up to the city's codes.
The 10 attorneys who filed the lawsuit against D.R. Horton and Bell
Mechanical include Lafayette attorneys Lance Beal, Alan Haney and
Yul Lorio; Baton Rouge attorneys Lewis Unglesby, Lance Unglesby,
Jordan Bollinger, Adrian Simm Jr. and Jamie Gontareck; and Denham
Springs attorneys Calvin Fayard Jr. and D. Blayne Honeycutt.
In addition to the Dixons, attorneys say plaintiffs in the case
include those who purchased a new home constructed and sold by D.R.
Horton between Jan. 1, 2013, to present day who have experienced
problems with mold or mildew growth and damage to their homes.
Construction information is typically found in the legal documents
signed on the day of closing when purchasing a home.
Lafayette Parish residents who are unable to locate that
information can also contact the Clerk of Court's office. Call
337-291-6300 for land records, or view documents in person at 800
South Buchanan St. Records are also available online for a fee at
lpclerk.com/onlinerecords.cfm.
Those who believe they might qualify as a plaintiff in the lawsuit
can reach out to Beal's office at 337-991-6263 to learn more. [GN]
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: January 3 Order in Pension Fund Suit Clarified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
98 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte LLP,
Defendants, C/A No. 3:19-3304-MBS (D.S.C.), Judge Margaret B.
Seymour of the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Columbia Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion to
clarify the Court's Jan. 3, 2022 order.
I. Introduction
It is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 (the "Union") Pension
Fund (the "Fund") pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Act. The
Fund alleges that Defendants Deloitte & Touche, LLP and Deloitte
LLP issued unqualified audit reports on certain financial
statements for calendar years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, and in so
doing knowingly or recklessly failed to furnish investors with
information regarding the true financial status of a nuclear energy
expansion project at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station in
Fairfield County, South Carolina.
On Aug. 10, 2021, the Fund filed a motion (1) for a protective
order regarding the Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition
notice, and (2) to quash subpoenas of Brian Burrows and Todd
Neilson, both Trustees of the Fund and members of the Union. At
issue were Topics 30-34 of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice,
which referenced an indictment pending against Burrows and others
for conduct that allegedly occurred in their employment with the
Union, as well as a Department of Labor complaint alleging
mismanagement of elections for the Union.
The Fund argued that these Topics had no relevance to any claim or
defense in the action. It further contended that the subpoenas of
non-parties Burrows and Neilson sought discovery into the same
topics objected to in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice, as well as other
information that could be obtained through the Fund's Rule 30(b)(6)
designee. The Defendants asserted in the hearing that, at bottom,
they desired to explore the work relationships between and among
Burrows, Neilson, and Tara Chupka, an attorney who represents both
the Fund and the Union, for the purpose of ascertaining the Fund's
fitness to represent the class. The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition went
forward on Sept. 10, 2021 regarding the unobjected-to Topics.
By order filed Jan. 3, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the Fund's motion. It granted the Fund's motion for a
protective order, stating that the Defendants could query the
Fund's Rule 36(b)(6) designee about statements made on behalf of
the Fund by Burrows and Neilson, but were prohibited from
propounding questions regarding the indictment and Department of
Labor complaint. The Court denied the Fund's motion to quash, but
restricted the Defendants from inquiring into the indictment and
Department of Labor complaint.
The matter now is before the Court on the Fund's motion to clarify
the Court's Jan. 3, 2022 order, which motion was filed on Jan. 18,
2022. The Defendants filed a response in opposition on Jan. 18,
2022, to which the Fund filed a reply on Feb. 2, 2022. The Fund
contends that the Defendants seek additional discovery that was not
authorized by the Court's Jan. 3, 2022 order. The Fund contends
that the Court authorized discovery on only one topic, the working
relationships between and among Burrows, Neilson, and Chupka, and
only through individual depositions of Burrows and Neilson.
According to the Fund, the Defendants improperly have noticed a
second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as well as a deposition of Chupka.
II. Discussion
A. Second Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
The second Rule 30(b)(6) notice sets forth two Topics of inquiry:
35. Information regarding declarations and prior statements
made on behalf of the Fund by Brian Burrows and Todd Neilson.
36. Information regarding the decades-long, intertwined work
history between Brian Burrows and Todd Neilson, as well as Tara
Chupka.
The Fund contends that Topic 35 was encompassed in Topics 3, 4, and
24 of the first Rule 30(b)(6) notice, which were testified to at
length by Neilson on September 10, 2021. It further states that the
Fund has no relevant information responsive to Topic 36, other than
personal knowledge of Burrows and Neilson.
In response, the Defendants inform the court that the Fund has not
yet produced Burrows and Neilson for their depositions, but that,
unless they gain additional relevant information during the
individual depositions, there would be few, if any detailed
questions remaining for the Rule 30(b)(6) designee regarding Topic
35. Regarding Topic 36, the Defendants argue that the Fund is
responsible for designating any individual associated with the Fund
who would have knowledge or information beyond the personal
knowledge of Burrows and Neilson.
Judge Seymour holds that the Court did not prohibit the Defendants
from seeking a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. It appears,
however, that the Fund can provide no relevant information. Judge
Seymour directs the Fund to produce an affidavit to that effect and
file it with the Court forthwith.
B. Chupka Deposition
The Fund asserts that the Court did not authorize Defendants to
take Chupka's deposition, and that the deposition was not properly
noticed in advance of the deadline for the Defendants to file their
opposition to the Fund's motion for class certification. The Fund
claims that the Defendants waived their right to obtain discovery
from Chupka, even if it were relevant, which the Fund contends it
is not.
The Defendants respond that Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1) allows a party
to depose any person without leave of court. They further note that
the Court has an on-going obligation to ensure the requirements for
class certification are being met. They argue that Chupka's
testimony is particularly relevant to the issue of the Fund's
independence from the Union, and state that Neilson referenced
Chupka numerous times during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition held on
Sept. 10, 2021.
Judge Seymour agrees that the Defendants may depose Chupka without
leave of court. It goes without saying that Chupka is protected
from responding to questions that implicate the attorney-client or
work product privileges. The Defendants again are cautioned against
attempting to explore facts surrounding the indictment and
Department of Labor complaint.
III. Disposition
Judge Seymour granted the Plaintiff's motion to clarify is granted
as set forth.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2ebuza from Leagle.com.
DOWN AND DIRTY: Hardwell Balks at Food Service Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIJAH HARDWELL and SEAN HARDWELL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOWN AND DIRTY TACOS AND
TEQUILA BAR MEATPACKING LLC; SUGAR FACTORY BROADWAY, LLC; SHERWIN
JAROL; and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
705219/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., March 9, 2022) seeks to
recover, inter alia, compensation, including unpaid tips and
gratuities and minimum wages, overtime compensation, and spread of
hours compensation owed by the Defendants to Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated persons for violation of New York Labor Law.
Throughout the relevant period, Defendants employed, in furtherance
of their food service operation, numerous individuals including
Plaintiffs and putative class members, in trades including as
servers, bussers, food runners, bartenders, and in various other
related customarily-tipped trades.
Down and Dirty Tacos and Tequila Bar Meatpacking LLC is a food
service company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Dixon Suit Over Discriminatory Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE DIXON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; and JAIME GAONA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., and
THE EDWARD JONES FINANCIAL COMPANIES, L.L.L.P., Defendants, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00284 (E.D. Mo., March 9, 2022) is a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
seeking to address the Defendants' alleged pattern and practice of
systemic, company-wide pay discrimination against women and diverse
financial advisors (FAs) including Plaintiffs.
According to the complaint, Edward Jones repeatedly and
discriminatorily denied Plaintiffs Dixon and Gaona asset sharing
opportunities and access to lucrative accounts based on sex/gender
and/or diversity status, which negatively impacted their
opportunity for commissions and overall compensation. As a result,
women and diverse FAs at Edward Jones are paid less than
non-diverse and/or male financial FAs.
Plaintiff Dixon has worked at Edward Jones as an FA since 2017. In
2020, Ms. Dixon disclosed to Edward Jones leadership that she
identifies as LGBTQ+.
Plaintiff Jimmy Gaona is a first-generation Mexican American whose
parents immigrated to the United States from Mexico. Mr. Gaona
worked as an FA at Edward Jones from November 2013 to January
2022.
Edward Jones is a Fortune 500 company that provides financial
services to clients in the United States and Canada. According to
its website, Edward Jones currently manages $1.7 trillion in assets
for over 7 million clients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Bria Davis, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
davis@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Christi J. Hilker, Esq.
Amy M. Fowler, Esq.
HF LAW FIRM LLC
3101 W. 86th St.
Leawood, KS 66206
Telephone: (816)739-0107
Facsimile: (913)426-9181
E-mail: christi@hflawfirmllc.com
amy@hflawfirmllc.com
ELECTRIC LAST: Kaskela Law Reminds of April 4 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Investor protection law firm Kaskela Law LLC on March 14 disclosed
that an investor class action lawsuit has been filed against
Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corp.
("ELMS" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ELMS) on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of the Company's securities between March 31, 2021
and February 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
ELMS investors with financial losses in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at
(484) 299 - 0750, or by email (abell@kaskelalaw.com) or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/elms/, for additional information
about this action and their legal rights and options.
According to the complaint, on February 2, 2022, the Company issued
a press release entitled "Electric Last Mile Solutions Announces
Leadership Transition and Financial Update" which disclosed (i)
changes to the Company's leadership and (ii) that certain of the
Company's financial statements needed restatement. Among other
things, the press release reported that James Taylor "has resigned
from his role as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the
Board," and that Jason Luo "resigned from his position as Executive
Chairman of the Board." The press release further disclosed that
these departures "follow an investigation conducted by a Special
Committee of the Board of Directors."
Local Trending News
Following this news, shares of the Company's common stock declined
$2.88 per share, or over 51% in value, to close at $2.71 per share
on February 2, 2022, on heavy trading volume.
IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased ELMS's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than April 4, 2022, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.
Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate
governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional
information about Kaskela Law LLC please
visit www.kaskelalaw.com.
CONTACT:
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(888) 715 - 1740
(484) 229 - 0750
www.kaskelalaw.com [GN]
ESSA BANCORP: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Illegal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that ESSA Bancorp's
subsidiary, ESSA Bank & Trust was named as a defendant in an action
commenced on December 8, 2016 by a plaintiff who will also seek to
pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class
of people similarly situated. The class action case was stayed
while the parties explored the potential for a negotiated
resolution. The parties engaged in mediation but did not resolve
the matter. The parties are now in the discovery process.
The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of
making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.
In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted
ESSA's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the
court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the
appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the
plaintiff’s case against the Bank, and remanded the case back to
the district court in order to continue the litigation. The
litigation is now proceeding before the district court.
On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the
complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar
claims. On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. In an order dated November 24, 2020, the
court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge to assist in
mediation efforts.
The case was stayed while the parties explored the potential for a
negotiated resolution.
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based
in Pennsylvania.
ESSA BANCORP: Sued Over Illegal Fees in Loans
---------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that on May 29, 2020,
ESSA Bancorp's subsidiary, ESSA Bank & Trust was named as a
defendant in an action commenced by three plaintiffs who will also
seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the
entire class of people similarly situated.
The plaintiffs allege that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks from a different title
company than the one involved in the previously discussed
litigation in the process of making loans.
The original complaint alleged violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint on September 30, 2020 that dropped the
RICO claim, but they are continuing to pursue the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act and Sherman Act claims.
The Bank moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claim on October 14,
2020, and that motion was denied on April 2, 2021. The parties are
now in the discovery process.
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based
in Pennsylvania.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Family Dollar Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Vinnie L. Smith, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Family Dollar Inc.,
Dollar Tree Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00043-DPM (E.D. Ark., March 14,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory E. Bryant, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GREG BRYANT
300 Spring Building, Suite 310
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 375-3344
Email: gregbryantlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Thomas P. Thrash
William Thomas Crowder
THRASH LAW FIRM
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 374-1058
Fax: (501) 374-2222
Email: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com
FAT BRANDS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FAT Brands, Inc. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01385 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FAT Brands -- https://www.fatbrands.com/ -- is an American
multi-brand restaurant operator headquartered in Beverly Hills,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Peeling Exterior Paint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against GM by certain owners of
the automaker's 2015 to 2019 model year full-size truck and SUV
models over peeling exterior paint.
Plaintiffs in this class-action suit, which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, say the exterior
paint on affected vehicles is prone to delaminating, peeling,
bubbling, flaking and/or blistering, according to Car Complaints.
They also allege the paint peels and delaminates without any
external or environmental influence, as the paint and clear coat
were are not able to bond properly due to their opposing chemical
properties.
Plaintiffs say this problem has lessened the second-hand value of
affected vehicles and that a repaint will not suffice, as
hand-painted vehicles often do not have the same consistent finish
as ones painted in the factory by a robot. They also say GM was
aware of the paint defects and "failed to provide truthful
information," regarding the paint's condition to customers. The
lawsuit calls for GM to repurchase affected vehicles at full cost,
reimburse lessees based on how much they're paid toward their
leases and to recall all vehicles with defective paint.
Interestingly, the class action complaint itself contains a
reference to an online complaint that was submitted to
CarComplaints.com by the owner of a 2015 model year Chevy Tahoe.
This individual says the topcoat on the hood and roof of their
Tahoe "started to fade/grey and crack on the black undercoat,"
after three years of ownership. The GM dealership they took the
vehicle to quoted them $2,300 to have the hood repainted. This
person says they expected the paint to "last well into a decade,"
and that this happened despite the fact they wash their vehicle
weekly and get it detailed professionally every six months.
The following GM vehicles are involved in the suit:
2015-2019 Chevrolet Tahoe
2015-2019 Chevrolet Suburban
2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
2015-2019 GMC Yukon
2015-2019 GMC Yukon XL
2015-2019 GMC Sierra
This class-action lawsuit was filed by Florida GM customers Tom
Riley, Heather Shrum and Gary Ambrose, along with Tennessee GM
customer Sherry Kilburn. We'll provide more information on the suit
as it becomes available.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Suburban news, Chevy Tahoe
news, Chevy news, GMC Yukon news, GMC Sierra news, GMC news and
around-the-clock GM news coverage. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Transmission Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hanson, Esq., in an article for Legal Scoops, reports that
current or former purchasers or lessees of certain 2015 -- 2019
model year GM Corvette, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC vehicles need
to pay close attention to their legal rights.
Won v. General Motors LLC (E.D. MI. Case No. 2:19-cv-11044-DML-DRG)
is a class action lawsuit filed on April 10, 2019, which was
consolidated with lawsuits filed by several other consumers on
behalf of people who purchased or leased certain cars equipped with
a 8L45 or 8L90 GM transmission.
In September 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action complaint. The affected vehicles include:
2015-2019 Corvette C7
2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade
2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade ESV
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CT6
2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado
2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro
2017-2019 GMC Canyon
2015-2019 GMC Sierra
2015-2019 GMC Yukon
2015-2019 GMC Yukon XL
2015-2017 GMC Yukon Denali
According to the complaint, vehicles equipped with GM's 8L45E and
8L90 automatic transmissions can cause slipping gears, shifting
into gear aggressively, shuddering or jerking, delayed
acceleration, and have trouble slowing down ("Transmission
Defect").
These GM transmission problems can cause unsafe conditions such as
the vehicles suddenly lurching forward, sudden loss of forward
movement or significant delays in acceleration.
The complaint alleges these conditions present a safety hazard
because they severely affect the driver's ability to control the
vehicle's speed, acceleration, and deceleration.
Current or former owners experiencing these GM transmission
problems should be aware that the California lemon law and other
state and federal laws may force GM to either "buy the vehicle
back," or provide other compensation for those experiencing the
Transmission Defect.
Under California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be bought
back. That can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your loan or
lease, and could be as much as everything you paid for the vehicle
and everything you owe: monthly payments, down payments, tax,
finance charges, license, and registration, etc. You could even
qualify for two-times your money back.
There is a formula in the law that starts with you getting all your
money back, and then taking certain deductions and exclusions away
from your payment. Those refunds and exclusions are difficult to
understand and can be fought against by knowledgeable consumer
attorneys.
We are available to help you sort through these questions and make
an informed decision. Simply fill out the form below and we will
contact you.
Status of the GM Transmission Class Actions
Five class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan over these GM transmission
problems and were consolidated in September 2019:
Francis Won, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 19-11044
Shelton, et al. v. General Motors, Case No. 19-11802
Ray v. General Motors, Case No. 19-11808
Duffy, et al. v. General Motors, Case No. 19-11875
Gutierrez, et al. v. General Motors, Case, No. 19-12371
On November 30, 2020, the Court issued an Order dismissing some
claims from the complaint but allowed other class action claims to
proceed. The Court issued another order on June 3, 2021.
On September 24, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for Leave to File Second
Addendum to Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, which was
granted on December 16, 2021.
A motion for class certification was filed by plaintiffs on
February 7, 2022, and GM filed its response on March 9, 2022. The
Court has set a hearing for June 2, 2022. The court has not yet set
a trial date. This case has not settled and is not in settlement
negotiations.
As a GM transmission class member, what are your options?
In a class action lawsuit, if the class is certified by the Court
the lawyers who bring the class action represent you. If they
prevail at trial, you receive whatever relief that is awarded by
the judge or jury. If they lose, you may not be able to litigate
claims over the issues raised.
As with most litigation, the vast majority of class action cases
settle. You will receive a class notice describing your options.
Those options will be: (a) do nothing, in which case you may get
nothing but be bound by the settlement, (b) submit a claim form if
requested and get whatever relief is provided and you are also
bound by the settlement, or (c) opt out and pursue your own claims,
in which case you are not bound by the settlement but cannot
participate in the relief being offered to class members.
For many people, a class action settlement may provide significant
benefits and requires little effort to participate. It also comes
with little to no risk, as the claims have been resolved.
But for others, particularly where they may have had significant
damages, opting out and pursuing individual claims may provide them
an opportunity to receive a better recovery, in a shorter period of
time, but with no guarantee they will get anything in settlement.
We are available to help you sort through these questions and make
an informed decision as to your options. Simply fill out the
following form and we will promptly contact you.
With vehicles what to do can be a complicated decision, as it can
depend on many factors. These factors include:
how old is your car?
has your car has slipping gears, aggressive shifting into gear,
shuddering or jerking, delayed acceleration, trouble slowing down,
sudden lurches forward, sudden loss of forward movement or
significant delays in acceleration occurred in your car?
have you taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion?
do you still own the car?
is the car still under warranty?
Where do you live?
GM Transmission Problems and Class Action Lawsuit FAQ
When and where were the GM transmission class action lawsuits
filed?
Won v. General Motors LLC (E.D. MI. Case No. 2:19-cv-11044-DML-DRG)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on April 10, 2019. Five other class action
lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, and were consolidated in September 2019.
What do Plaintiffs allege in the GM transmission class action
lawsuits?
According to the complaint, vehicles with GM's 8L45E and 8L90
automatic transmissions can cause slipping gears, shifting into
gear aggressively, shuddering or jerking, delayed acceleration, and
have trouble slowing down.
The complaint further alleges that the Transmission Defect
manifests itself within the limited warranty period or shortly
after the limited warranty period expires.
The complaint further alleges that GM knew, or should have known,
of this critical defect during sale or shortly thereafter when
people complained of the defect at GM's authorized dealerships, but
that GM failed to disclose the Transmission Defect to consumers.
What vehicle models are identified in the GM transmission class
action lawsuits?
2015-2019 Corvette C7
2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade
2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade ESV
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CT6
2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado
2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro
2017-2019 GMC Canyon
2015-2019 GMC Sierra
2015-2019 GMC Yukon
2015-2019 GMC Yukon XL
2015-2017 GMC Yukon Denali
How many GM vehicles are affected by this transmission defect?
According to publicly available data, there have been approximately
5.5 million of these vehicles sold in the United States.
What does the class action lawsuit claim causes the GM transmission
defect?
The complaint alleges that the shuddering, shaking, jerking and
hesitation in these vehicles is related to internal issues within
the transmission and/or torque converter causing undue friction and
impairing proper functioning of hydraulic systems and gears, which
results in metal shavings being circulated throughout the
transmission.
This damage to the transmission and torque converter imposes
escalating repairs upon consumers, including the need to flush the
metal shavings from the transmission.
Are Vehicles with the GM Transmission Defect Unsafe?
The complaint alleges that the Transmission Defect can cause unsafe
conditions including but not limited vehicles suddenly lurching
forward, sudden loss of forward movement, and significant delays in
acceleration. The complaint further alleges these conditions
present a safety hazard because they severely affect the driver's
ability to control the vehicle's speed, acceleration, and
deceleration.
We are available to help you sort through these questions and make
an informed decision as to your options. Simply fill out the
following form and we will promptly contact you.
How does the transmission defect violate the affected vehicle
warranty?
GM provided all purchasers of the Class Vehicles with a New Vehicle
Limited Warranty with the purchase or lease of the Class Vehicles.
The New Vehicle Limited Warranty for Cadillac-brand vehicles
("Cadillac Warranty") included a "Bumper-to-Bumper" warranty (the
complete vehicle is covered for 4 years or 50,000 miles, whichever
comes first) and a Powertrain warranty (7 years or 70,000 miles,
whichever comes first).
The New Vehicle Limited Warranty for Chevrolet and GM-brand Class
Vehicles ("Chevrolet/GM Warranty") included substantially the same
terms as the Cadillac Warranty terms, except that the Chevrolet/GM
Warranty's "Bumper-to-Bumper" coverage period was limited to "the
first 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first," and the
powertrain warranty coverage period was limited to "5 years or
60,000 miles, whichever comes first."
The complaint further alleges GM breached these express warranties
by performing illusory repairs to fix the Transmission Defect.
Rather than repairing the vehicles under the express warranties,
the complaint alleges GM falsely informed consumers there was no
problem with their Class Vehicles, performed ineffective procedures
including software updates, and/or replaced defective components in
the 8L90 and 8L45 transmissions with equally defective components
without actually repairing the vehicles.
Have the consumers been offered anything to resolve this issue?
The complaint alleges that the Transmission Defect is covered under
GM's express warranty. However, when consumers bring their vehicles
to GM's authorized agents for repair, they are told that their
vehicles are behaving normally, given ineffective repairs, or are
having their transmissions or components replaced with the same
defective parts.
The complaint alleges GM has routinely failed to repair these
vehicles under warranty when the defect manifests even though GM
knew, or should have known, of this critical defect during sale or
shortly thereafter when numerous consumers complained of the
Transmission Defect at GM's authorized dealerships.
The complaint also alleges that although GM was obligated to
correct the Transmission Defect, none of the attempted fixes to the
transmissions or software updates are adequate under the terms of
the vehicle warranties, as they did not cure the defect.
Have the GM transmission class action lawsuits been settled?
Not at this time.
Is there anything I need to do at this time?
At this point the case has not settled. While a motion for class
certification is set to be heard in June 2022, at this point the
case has not been certified to proceed as a class action. If you
want to bring your own claim, you can do so now and opt out when
you receive notice. Or the class will be defined as those people
who have not sued or settled their claims and you will be
automatically opted out of the settlement.
As a settlement has not been reached and class certification has
not been granted or notice mailed out, there is nothing you need to
do at this time. However, if you would like to discuss your options
with us, please fill out the following form.
Why Should I Opt-Out of Any Certified Class or Settlement?
For many people a class action provides them significant benefits
without the need to spend any money or do much other than complete
a claim form. And because the matter is settled, as long as the
Court approves the settlement you will get the relief described in
the class notice.
handing keys over to carHowever, many people do not want to wait to
get relief or that they think they will get more if they do not
participate in a class action settlement. This depends on a variety
of factors, such as how old is your car, can you document the
defect occurred in your car, have you taken it in for repairs on
more than one occasion, do you still own the car, is it still under
warranty and where do you live.
Depending on the answers to those questions, while there is no
guarantee you will receive any recovery if you opt out you may have
the opportunity to receive significant relief, including a vehicle
repurchase and possible penalties.
What is the Song Beverly Warranty Act?
The Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code Section
1793.2(d)(1), is a California state law that requires manufacturers
to repair defects after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
What is "reasonable" is not set in stone – safety defects should
be fixed immediately, for example. The defects must "substantially
impair the vehicle's use, value, or safety." Civil Code Section
1793.22(e)(2).
Under Civil Code Section 1793.2(d)(1), manufacturers such as GM
must promptly offer repurchase or replacement of the vehicle if
they cannot fix it in a reasonable time frame. In addition, Civil
Code Section 1794(c) and Section 1793.2(d) provides that customers
may have a civil penalty up to two times actual damages if
manufacturers acted "willfully" (meaning knowingly not necessarily
malicious) in ignoring or failing its obligation under the
Song-Beverly Act.
Finally, as the Song-Beverly Act is a pro-consumer fee-shifting
statute under Civil Code Section 1794(d), manufacturers such as GM
must pay consumers' attorney's fees and costs as part of any
litigation or settlement.
May I have additional legal rights if I am a member of the Armed
Forces?
Under Cal. Civil Code 1795.8, if a person is a member of the Armed
Forces the protections of the Song Beverly Act may apply, even if
you purchased your vehicle outside of California, so long as the
manufacturer sells vehicles in California.
Members of the Armed Forces would need to show they were stationed
in or a resident of California when they purchased the vehicle or
when they filed a claim against the manufacturer.
We are here to answer your questions
There are a lot of factors to consider in deciding whether to opt
out of a class action lawsuit and pursue individual claims. We are
available to help you sort through these questions and make an
informed decision as to your options. Simply fill out the following
form and we will promptly contact you. [GN]
GLOBAL VALUE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Value
Commerce, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Value
Commerce, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02112 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Global Value Commerce, Inc. -- https://www.globalvaluecommerce.com/
-- wholesales and distributes sporting and recreation goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Online Ordering Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Williams, writing for FOX KTVU, reports that a group of
restaurants has filed a class-action lawsuit against Google,
alleging the tech giant resorted to deceptive online ordering
practices for profit.
The suit was filed by Left Field Holdings LLC, a Florida-based
franchisee of six "Lime Fresh Mexican Grill" restaurants, in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of California earlier this
month.
Left Field Holdings LLC accused Google of "deliberately misleading
consumers by using the tradenames and reputations of the restaurant
class members without their permission."
According to the complaint, when a customer wants to order food and
uses Google to search for a restaurant, the tech giant directs them
to an "unauthorized digital ‘storefront' or pop-up webpage owned
and controlled by Google."
The complaint further stated that Google designed the web pages by
featuring the restaurants' tradenames, tricking customers into
believing they are on a website owned by the restaurant. Google
then uses the webpages to capture food orders and sell them to
online delivery platforms such as Postmates, DoorDash and Grubhub,
according to court documents.
The lawsuit further alleged that Google never obtained permission
to use the restaurants' tradenames, robbing the restaurants of
customer relationships and forcing businesses to shell out
"substantial fees paid to delivery platforms (as much as 30%) for
each order that Google routes to a delivery provider." Attorneys
for Left Field Holdings said a portion of that fee is paid to
Google.
"Had consumers placed orders with the restaurants directly, the
restaurants would have avoided or reduced the delivery platforms'
fees," attorneys said in a news release.
"The restaurant industry has already been gutted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Online orders have served as a lifeline to help them
reach customers, make a slim profit, and continue employing their
staff members," attorney Jason Zweig with Kelle Lenkner law firm
said. "It is appalling that Google would take advantage of an
industry going through such a challenging time and, through these
deceptive and illegal practices, take a portion of their
hard-earned profits for itself."
"Restaurants need to make a profit to stay in business. But
Google's deceptive webpages divert orders and customers away from
the restaurants and into a process that benefits Google, but not
the restaurants," attorney Tim Sperling of Sperling & Slater added.
Google is accused of violating the Lanham Act, a statute
prohibiting trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false
advertising.
Google has responded to the pending lawsuit.
"Our goal is to connect customers with restaurants they want to
order food from and make it easier for them to do it through the
‘Order Online' button," a Google spokesperson told FOX Television
Stations. "We provide tools for merchants to indicate whether they
support online orders or prefer a specific provider, including
their own ordering website. We do not receive any compensation for
orders or integrations with this feature. We dispute the
mischaracterizations of our product and will defend ourselves
vigorously."
This story was reported from Los Angeles. [GN]
GREATER CINCINNATI: Class in Kleinhans Suit Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Austin Kleinhans, et al., Plaintiffs v. Greater
Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00070 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification,
Expedited Opt-In Discovery, and Court-Supervised Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.
The matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Nov. 1,
2021 Report and Recommendation. Defendant Greater Cincinnati
Behavioral Health Services filed timely objection, and Plaintiffs
Austin Kleinhans and Tessa Bradley filed a timely response to the
objections.
The R&R provides a comprehensive review of the case's background
and the parties' arguments regarding the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery, and
Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. The
Defendant submits three objections to the R&R.
First, the Defendant argues that the Court is not bound by the
two-phase certification framework in Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") cases. It asserts that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit has not expressly adopted the two-phase certification
framework, and the Court should defer ruling on the Plaintiffs'
current motion pending the Sixth Circuit's decision in the
interlocutory appeal in Holder v. A&L Home Care & Training Ctr.,
LLC, No. 1:20-CV-757, 2021 WL 3400654 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2021),
regarding the continued appropriateness of the two-phase
certification process for FLSA collectives in this Circuit.
In response to the Defendant's request that the Court disregards
the Sixth Circuit's authority on the two-phase FLSA certification
process in favor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit's recent rejection of the two-phase certification process
in Swales v. KLLM Transp. Servs., L.L.C., 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir.
2021), the Magistrate Judge held that "the Court is bound by the
law of the Sixth Circuit, which follows the two-tiered conditional
certification approach."
Judge Barrett opines that while the Defendant is correct that the
Sixth Circuit has never expressly adopted the two-phase process,
the Sixth Circuit has historically acknowledged and approved the
two-stage process. The Defendant provides no authority from the
Sixth Circuit that rejects the two-phase certification process.
Absent contrary direction from the Sixth Circuit, the Magistrate
Judge's holding that courts in the Circuit are to follow the
two-step process is not contrary to law.
Further, as the case is a hybrid collective action brought under
the FLSA and Rule 23 class action brought under the laws of the
state of Ohio, Judge Barrett finds that waiting for the decision in
Brooke Clark, et al v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, et
al., Sixth Circuit Case No. 22-3101, regarding only FLSA cases,
does not create judicial economy.
Second, the Defendant argues that conclusory allegations are
insufficient to obtain conditional certification. The Magistrate
Judge found that, via the Plaintiffs' submission of sworn
declarations of the named Plaintiffs and six opt-in Plaintiffs and
the information in those declarations, the Plaintiffs met their
burden at the first phase to show that members of the proposed
collective are similarly situated.
Judge Barrett holds that the Defendant's argument that this finding
is clearly erroneous, as the Plaintiffs only offered conclusory
allegations in those declarations, simply repeats its prior
argument that the Magistrate Judge already rejected. The
Defendant's second objection does not present any new argument that
convinces the Court that the Magistrate Judge's finding is clearly
erroneous.
Third, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' Notice should
reference opt-in plaintiffs' potential discovery obligations. The
Magistrate Judge denied this request as the Defendant did not cite
any authority for adding such language or provide any proposed
language to add to the Notice in furtherance of its request.
Although the Defendant now provides the language that it wishes to
add to the Notice, Judge Barrett cannot hold that the Magistrate
Judge's finding on this issue is clearly erroneous, particularly in
light of the Defendant's prior failure to provide any requested
language to review. Nevertheless, he will permit the Defendant to
add the following language to the Notice: "While the suit is
proceeding, you may be required to provide information, sit for a
deposition, and testify in court."
In sum, the factual findings and legal conclusions in the R&R are
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Barrett adopted that the
Magistrate Judge's R&R except that the Notice should reference the
opt-in plaintiffs' potential discovery obligations as discussed
herein. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery, and
Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs will file an amended notice consistent with the R&R and
the Order within 14 days of the issuance of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfh5xyp from Leagle.com.
GRUMA CORPORATION: Salvador Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EPIFANIA SALVADOR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GRUMA CORPORATION and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV01800, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on March 15, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01703 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act.
Gruma Corporation is a manufacturing company based in Irving,
Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dan M. Forman, Esq.
Marilena Guadagnini, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-6300
E-mail: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com
mguadagnini@cdflaborlaw.com
GULFPORT ENERGY: Rotunno Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph A. Rotunno filed an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing the lawsuit entitled ROBERT F. WOODLEY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID M.
WOOD, KERI CROWELL, and QUENTIN R. HICKS, Defendants, 20-cv-2357,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, on March 17, 2020, the
putative class action was brought under federal securities laws
against Gulfport and its top officers. A first amended complaint
was filed on April 1, 2021 pursuant to a stipulation between the
parties. The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint as a
matter of course on July 8, 2021 in response to a motion to dismiss
filed on June 16, 2021. The complaint alleges that the Defendants
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements concerning the manner in which they accounted
for their oil and gas properties.
The Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss on June 16, 2021. In
response, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint as a
matter of course on July 8, 2021, mooting the Defendants' first
motion to dismiss. The second amended complaint alleges that
Defendants issued false and misleading statements and material
omissions related to the 2019 filings. The Defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim.
On January 11, 2022, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District
of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
On February 14, 2022, the Court entered Judgment and Order which
that for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated
January 11, 2022, and Memo Endorsed Order Dated February 14,2022,
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and the case is closed.
The Plaintiff is taking an appeal from this ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Woodley v. Gulfport Energy
Corporation, Case No. 22-502, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on March 10, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph A. Rotunno, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Defendants-Appellees David M. Wood, Keri Crowell, and Quentin R.
Hicks are represented by:
Brian Kerr, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Telephone: (212) 408-2543
E-mail: brian.kerr@bakerbotts.com
- and -
David Dykeman Sterling, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
1 Shell Plaza
910 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 229-1946
E-mail david.sterling@bakerbotts.com
H MART COMPANIES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H Mart Companies,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. H Mart Companies, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01357 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
H Mart -- https://www.hmart.com/ -- is a Korean–American
supermarket chain operated by the Hanahreum Group headquartered in
Lyndhurst, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HENKEL CORPORATION: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Henkel Corporation.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Henkel Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-02101-JPO (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Henkel -- https://www.henkel.com/ -- is the leading solution
provider for adhesives, sealants and functional coatings
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HENRY SCHEIN: Dropped from Consolidated Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 25, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 15, 2022, that plaintiffs in a
consolidated amended complaint agreed to dismiss Henry Schein
without prejudice and the court "so ordered" the stipulation
dismissing Henry Schein as a defendant on December 13, 2021.
Henry Schein, Inc. is a solutions company for health care
professionals and is a provider of health care products and
services primarily to office-based dental and medical
practitioners, as well as alternate sites of care.
HOLIDAY HAVEN: Robinson & Cole Attorney Discusses CAFA Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq., of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that a recent Eleventh Circuit
decision on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) caught my eye. It
involves the kind of question legislators (and their staffs)
probably never think about when drafting a statute. Law professors
dream up these types of questions when trying to find a way to
puzzle their students on an exam. It's of interest only to nerds of
the law.
In Ruhlen v. Holiday Haven Homeowners, Inc., No. 21-90022, -- F.4th
--, 2022 WL 701622 (11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2022), the question was
whether the trial court's order remanding the case to state court
"sua sponte" -- Latin for "of its own volition" -- could be
appealed. Under CAFA, federal appeals courts can hear appeals, in
their discretion, "from an order of a district court granting or
denying a motion to remand a class action to the State court from
which it was removed." 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c)(1) (emphasis
added). This case was removed to federal court based on both the
inclusion of a federal statutory claim in the complaint and under
CAFA. The federal claim was withdrawn in an amended complaint, and
the district court then remanded the case sua sponte, concluding
that the particular type of state law claim brought under a Florida
rule of civil procedure allowing a mobile homeowners' association
to sue on behalf of homeowners was not a "class action" within the
meaning of CAFA. The defendants asked the Eleventh Circuit to hear
an appeal from the remand order.
The Eleventh Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, concluded it did not have
jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no "motion to
remand" filed in the district court. The majority concluded that
the plain language of CAFA requires a "motion" made by a party and
does not apply to a remand ordered by the court without a motion
being filed. Although Black's Law Dictionary and some court
opinions refer to "sua sponte" as meaning "on its own motion," the
majority held that a "motion" requires a party's request, and when
the court acts sua sponte, "the court . . . does not actually
'request[]' anything of itself, nor does it grant or deny anyone
else's request." The majority acknowledged that Congress may have
intended otherwise, and that this was an "odd" result, but felt it
was bound by the plain meaning of the text, citing Justice Scalia
and Brian Garner's book Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
Texts. The majority suggested Congress would have to fix this if
they intended otherwise.
Unless Congress fixes this or the Supreme Court takes the issue and
reaches a different result, those defending class actions in the
Eleventh Circuit better hope that if a jurisdictional issue arises,
the plaintiff files a motion to remand. If the court questions its
own jurisdiction, you might try suggesting that a briefing schedule
be set on a motion to remand the plaintiff might wish to file.
Otherwise you could have no chance to appeal.
Judge Rosenbaum dissented, finding the majority's reading of CAFA
"hypertechnical," inconsistent with the surrounding statutory
context and expressed Congressional purpose, and leading to an
absurd result. "I can conceive of no logical reason," she wrote,
"why the same action should be exposed to two opposite results,
depending on whether a party made a motion before the court issued
its order." Judge Rosenbaum identified a circuit split, citing a
decision by the Ninth Circuit, holding that CAFA allowed an appeal
of a sua sponte remand, and cases where the Seventh and Eighth
Circuits had reviewed sua sponte remands without raising the
jurisdictional issue.
Perhaps the Supreme Court will take this case, if a petition for
certiorari is filed. It would not be heavy lifting for them.
Assuming Judge Jackson is confirmed, this one could be a good
candidate for her first opinion, which are traditionally "easy"
ones that are of little interest to anyone other than lawyers in a
particular practice area. [GN]
HOOK & REEL: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hook & Reel
Franchise, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hook & Reel
Franchise, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01365 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hook & Reel Franchise LLC (trade name Hook & Reel Cajun Seafood) --
https://hookreel.com/ -- is in the Seafood Restaurants
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
JM BULLION: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JM Bullion, Inc. The
case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. JM Bullion, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02095 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
JM Bullion -- https://www.jmbullion.com/ -- is an online retailer
of gold and silver products, from bars to rounds to coins.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
JUUL LABS: Bear Lake Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEAR LAKE SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01620 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Bear Lake Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 7748 Cody Street in Bear Lake, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Bruneau-Grand View Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRUNEAU-GRAND VIEW 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-01638 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Bruneau-Grand View School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 39678 State Highway 78 in Bruneau,
Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Emery County Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERY 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-01624 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Emery County School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 120 North Main Street in Huntington, 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: Coeur d'Alene Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------
COEUR D'ALENE 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-01630 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Coeur d'Alene School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1400 N. Northwood Center Court in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Boundary County Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BOUNDARY 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-01637 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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, the suit contends.
Boundary County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 7188 Oak Street in Bonners Ferry, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Heritage Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
HERITAGE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01634-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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 says.
Heritage Academy Charter School is a unified school district with
its offices located at 500 South Lincoln Avenue in Jerome, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces American Falls Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN FALLS 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-01625 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
American Falls School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 827 Fort Hall in American Falls, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces ISTCS Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
-----------------------------------------------------------
IDAHO SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CHARTER SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01639 (N.D. Cal., March 15,
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.
Idaho Science & Technology Charter School (ISTCS) is a unified
school district with its offices located at 21 N. 550 W. in
Blackfoot, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Preston Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRESTON 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-01641 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Preston School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 120 East 2nd South Street in Preston, Idaho.
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: Glenns Ferry Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENNS FERRY 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-01627 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Glenns Ferry School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 800 Old Highway 30 in Glenns Ferry, Idaho.
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: Gooding School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GOODING 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-01626 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Gooding School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 507 Idaho Street in Gooding, Idaho.
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: Hagerman School Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis in Idaho
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HAGERMAN 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-01636 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Hagerman School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 324 North 2nd Avenue in Hagerman, Idaho.
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: Lewiston School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEWISTON 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-01631 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Lewiston School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 3317 12th Street in Lewiston, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Bonneville Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BONNEVILLE 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-01628 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Bonneville School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 3497 North Ammon Road in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
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: Marsing School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARSING 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-01633 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Marsing School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 209 8th Avenue West in Marsing, Idaho.
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: Middleton Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Idaho
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIDDLETON 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-01635 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Middleton School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 5 South Viking Avenue in Middleton, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Sugar Salem Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUGAR SALEM 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-01632 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 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.
Sugar Salem School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 105 West Center Street in Sugar City, Idaho.
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
K.E.S. CONSTRUCTION: Case Management Plan in Gomez Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAUSTINO GOMEZ, RAFAEL VILLEGAS, and LUIS RODRIGUEZ,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. K.E.S. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. and ABBAS G. MALIK,
Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 7524(PAE) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Sarah L. Cave of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Order on the parties' Report of Rule
26(f) Conference and Proposed Case Management Plan.
The Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers with the
Defendants and bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for unpaid overtime
wages. Specifically, the Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours
per workweek but were paid on a day-rate basis. In addition, the
Plaintiffs bring claims under the NYLL for the Defendants' failure
to furnish them with weekly wage statements. The Defendants dispute
the Plaintiffs' hours worked, wage rates, and manner of pay.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Judge
Cave's Individual Practices, the parties met on Dec. 9, 2021 (at
least one week before the Initial Case Management Conference) and
exchanged communications thereafter. The parties now submit their
report for the Court's consideration.
The parties' report of Rule 26(f) Conference and proposed case
management plan covers the following topics: Court Expectations;
Summary of Claims, Defenses, and Relevant Issues; Basis of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (and any dispute as to jurisdiction); Subjects
on Which Discovery May Be Needed; Informal Disclosures; Discovery
Plan; Anticipated Discovery Disputes; Amendments to Pleadings;
Expert Witness Disclosures; Electronic Discovery and Preservation
of Documents and Information; Early Settlement or Resolution;
Trial; and Other Matters.
Under the Discovery Plan, the parties jointly propose to the Court
the following discovery plan:
A. All discovery must be completed by June 24, 2022. Within
one week of the close of fact discovery, that is July 1, 2022, the
parties must file a joint letter on the docket certifying that fact
is discovery is complete.
B. The parties will conduct discovery in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Southern
District of New York, and Judge Cave's Individual Practices. The
following interim deadlines may be extended by the parties on
written consent without application to the Court, provided that the
parties meet the deadline for completing fact discovery set forth
in paragraph 6(A).
i. Depositions: Depositions will be completed by May 13,
2022, and limited to no more than 3 depositions per party. Absent
an agreement between the parties or an order from the Court,
non-party depositions will follow initial party depositions.
ii. Interrogatories: Initial sets of interrogatories were
due to be served on Jan. 17, 2022. All subsequent interrogatories
must be served no later than 30 days before the fact discovery
deadline.
iii. Requests for Admission: Requests for admission must
be served on or before May 20, 2022, and in any event no later than
30 days before the fact discovery deadline.
iv. Requests for Production: Initial requests for
production were/were due to be exchanged on Jan. 17, 2022, and
responses were due on March 21, 2022. All subsequent requests for
production must be served no later than 30 days before the
discovery deadline.
v. Supplementation: Supplementations under Rule 26(e)
must be made within a reasonable period of time after discovery of
such information, and in any event, no later than the fact
discovery deadline.
Under Trial, the parties anticipate that (i) the case will be ready
for trial by Sept. 5, 2022; (ii) the trial of the case will require
3 to 4 days; (iii) the parties would not consent to a trial before
a Magistrate Judge at this time; and (iv) the parties would request
a jury trial.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Report is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdddn33p from Leagle.com.
Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. -- cuadra@pechmanlaw.com -- ATTORNEYS
FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S).
Meng Michelle Cheng, Esq. -- michelle@zzllp.com -- ATTORNEYS FOR
THE DEFENDANT(S).
KENTUCKY: Sixth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Rhoades v. DOC
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CASEY RHOADES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JOHN TILLEY,
Secretary of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet; JAMES L. ERWIN,
Former Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Corrections,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-5899 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order granting summary judgment regarding the deliberate
indifference claims against Defendants Erwin and Tilley.
I. Introduction
At issue in the appeal are Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims
of over detention brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. K.R.S.
Section 532.400 authorized the Kentucky Department of Corrections
to subject certain offenders, like Casey Rhoades, to supervision
after they had fully served their sentences or terms of parole. A
circuit court declared the statute unconstitutional and permanently
enjoined its enforcement, which the Kentucky Court of Appeals
upheld. Rhoades was kept in custody for roughly 27 hours after the
Court of Appeals ordered the release of the affected inmates.
Rhoades brought a deliberate indifference claim in federal court
against three Kentucky officials in their personal capacity. The
district court granted summary judgment to two defendants and
dismissed the third.
II. Background
K.R.S. Section 532.400 authorized post-incarceration supervision
for up to one year for certain offenders after they completed their
sentence or parole. Offenders such as Rhoades, who were classified
as "maximum" or "close security," were subject to supervision under
the statute.
In December 2017, Donell Mitchem petitioned for declaratory and
injunctive relief in Franklin County Circuit Court challenging the
constitutionality of the statute. In March 2018, the circuit court
granted Mitchem's motion for summary judgment, holding that the
statute was unconstitutional. The Department of Corrections
appealed. In April, the circuit court permanently enjoined the
Department from holding Mitchem any longer and required that he be
released within 48 hours of the entry of the Order. The Department
did not seek to enjoin the circuit court's decision.
Later that summer, the circuit court allowed similarly situated
individuals, including Rhoades, to intervene in Mitchem's case.
Those individuals moved to permanently enjoin the Department's
enforcement of the statute and in September 2018, the court granted
the motion and ordered the Department to release the plaintiffs
from custody. At that point, the Department's appeal of the March
2018 Order remained pending. The Department appealed the September
2018 Order, and the circuit court denied the Department's request
to stay the injunction.
The Department then appealed and moved for interlocutory relief
from the September 2018 Order. In October 2018, the Kentucky Court
of Appeals denied the motion, holding that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion in issuing the September 2018 Order. It
also ordered that the Department's appeal of the September 2018
Order be held in abeyance pending the final disposition of the
Department's appeal of the March 2018 Order.
When the state appellate court's decision was issued on October 31,
a case manager notified the relevant parties at 12:23 p.m. At 2:01
p.m. that same day, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Attorney
Allison Brown confirmed with the Plaintiffs' attorney that the
Department of Corrections had already begun working on identifying
and releasing those prisoners being held under the statute. Rhoades
was approved for release on Nov. 1, 2018 and notice of that
approval was emailed at 4:13 p.m.
Mr. Rhoades brought the class action suit under 42 U.S.C Section
1983 in March 2019, alleging violation of the inmates' Eighth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also alleged that he
was falsely imprisoned. Rhoades sued the following individuals in
their individual capacities: John Tilley, the former Secretary of
the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet; James Erwin, the former
Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Corrections; and Randy
White, the Department of Corrections Deputy Commissioner.
Both Tilley and Erwin moved for summary judgment on all counts
against them. Rhoades moved to certify the class. The district
court granted both Tilley's and Erwin's motions on all counts. It
dismissed White from the case because Rhoades had abandoned his
claims against White. The motion to certify the class was denied as
moot. Rhoades timely appealed.
III. Discussion
Mr. Rhoades appeals only his federal deliberate indifference claims
and the class certification issue. Section 1983 provides a cause of
action against any person who deprives an individual of federally
guaranteed rights 'under color' of state law. There is no dispute
that the Defendants acted under color of state law. The federal
right at issue is the right of prisoners to be released from state
custody upon the completion of their sentences.
Both Erwin and Tilley argue that they are entitled qualified
immunity. Qualified immunity shields "government officials
performing discretionary functions from liability for civil
damages" when "their conduct does not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known." The plaintiff "bears the burden of overcoming
the qualified immunity defense." A plaintiff must show that an
official's conduct "(1) violated a constitutional right that (2)
was clearly established." Rhoades argues that his right to be
released upon the expiration of his sentence was violated.
The Sixth Circuit has held that the right to be released when a
prisoner's sentence expires is a clearly established right. Thus,
the only issue is whether a reasonable juror could conclude that
Erwin or Tilley violated Rhoades' constitutional right.
Mr. Rhoades alleges that the Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his risk of confinement beyond a valid sentence.
Deliberate indifference, under the Eighth Amendment, is a
subjective standard. The standard "is not mere negligence" because
the defendant "must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and
he must also draw the inference." Essentially, the official "must
have a 'sufficiently culpable state of mind.'" Under this standard,
government officials cannot be held liable for the acts of a
subordinate under a respondeat superior theory; rather, they must
have committed an unconstitutional act.
To determine whether a defendant violated a plaintiff's
constitutional rights in the over-detention context, the Sixth
Circuit employs a three-part test: To establish Section 1983
liability in this context, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that
a prison official had knowledge of the prisoner's problem and thus
of the risk that unwarranted punishment was being, or would be,
inflicted. Second, the plaintiff must show that the official either
failed to act or took only ineffectual action under circumstances
indicating that his or her response to the problem was a product of
deliberate indifference to the prisoner's plight. Finally, the
plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection between the
official's response to the problem and the infliction of the
unjustified detention.
A. Deliberate Indifference Claim Against James Erwin
The district court concluded that Rhoades failed to satisfy the
test because he did not show that Erwin had any knowledge of the
post-incarceration statute's litigation or the Kentucky Court of
Appeals' Oct. 31, 2019 Order. Rhoades does not dispute Erwin's
testimony; instead, he argues that Erwin should be presumed to have
knowledge of the suit because Brown, the attorney representing his
Department, had knowledge of the litigation.
The Sixth Circuit opines that the record shows that Erwin had no
knowledge of Rhoades' problem, and Brown's knowledge cannot be
imputed to Erwin. Erwin's role, moreover, did not include inmate
release functions, such as sentence calculations. On this record,
Rhoades does not satisfy part 1 of the test. Thus, no reasonable
juror could conclude that Erwin violated Rhoades' constitutional
right and Erwin is entitled summary judgment on the deliberate
indifference claim.
B. Deliberate Indifference Claim Against John Tilley
Although the district court found the issue of Tilley's knowledge
to be a "murkier question," the court reasoned that Tilley knew
about the statute's litigation at some point between the circuit
court's ruling and the Kentucky Court of Appeals' Order. But the
district court concluded that Rhoades' deliberate indifference
claim failed under the second and third prong of the Shorts test.
First, the Sixth Circuit opines that based on Tilley's testimony, a
reasonable juror could find that Tilley had knowledge of Rhoades'
problem "and thus of the risk that unwarranted punishment was
being, or would be, inflicted." Second, it opines that because the
evidence does not show that Tilley was deliberately indifferent,
the district court correctly concluded that Tilley was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Finally, because it has concluded that
both Erwin and Tilley are entitled to summary judgment, the Sixth
Circuit opines that district court correctly determined that the
motion for class certification was moot.
IV. Conclusion
Because the district court properly granted summary judgment
regarding the deliberate indifference claims against Erwin and
Tilley, Judge Jane B. Stranch, writing for the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5n85w96a from Leagle.com.
L'OREAL USA: Hicks Sues Over Mascara Product's Harmful Component
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZAIDA HICKS and STEPHANIE VARGAS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. L'OREAL USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01989 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2022) is
brought against the Defendant for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment and for violation of
the New York Consumer Law for Deceptive Acts and Practices.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant intentionally fails to
disclose to consumers that its popular waterproof mascara products
contain per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, despite the
fact that L'Oreal knew or should have known that this information
is material to consumers. Moreover, the Defendant fails to tell
Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers that PFAS, which can
have adverse effects on humans and can bioaccumulate in human's
bodies, are present in detectable amounts in its waterproof
mascaras.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Devin Bolton, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
1880 Century Park East, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (212) 558-5552
Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
E-mail: dbolton@weitzlux.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Jeff Grand, Esq.
Christopher Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
jgrand@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Sam Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
Brittany Resch, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3515
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509 4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
L'OREAL USA: Waterproof Mascara Has PFAS, Class Action Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that L'Oreal
USA intentionally fails to disclose that its waterproof mascara
products contain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), a new
class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs Zaida Hicks and Stephanie Vargas claim that, due to the
presence of PFAS, L'Oreal falsely represents that its waterproof
mascara products are "safe, effective, high quality and
appropriate" to use on eyelashes.
Hicks and Vargas claim the PFAS present in L'Oreal's waterproof
mascara are toxic to humans and cause an even greater risk due to
the fact the product is applied so close to the eyes.
"It is reasonable for consumers to be concerned about these
chemicals, which carry significant health risks and are often
undisclosed by manufacturers," the class action lawsuit states.
Hicks and Vargas argue further that L'Oreal intentionally failed to
disclose that its waterproof mascara contained PFAS, injuring
"reasonable consumers" who relied on the products packaging and
ingredients list.
The presence of PFAS in L'Oreal's waterproof mascara products was
discovered following independent lab testing, according to the
class action lawsuit.
L'Oreal Knew About, Failed to Disclose PFAS Presence, Plaintiffs
Say
Hicks and Vargas argue L'Oreal is responsible for both sourcing and
selecting the ingredients to be used in its waterproof mascara
products, in addition to conducting quality assurance testing.
"Therefore, Defendant knew, or should have known, that failing to
disclose the presence of detectable levels of PFAS was a material
omission and that it was concealing the true quality, nature and
safety of the Waterproof Mascara Products," the class action
lawsuit states.
Hicks and Vargas claim L'Oreal is guilty of unjust enrichment and
breach of implied and express warranty and in violation of New York
General Business Law.
Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive
relief along with actual, general, special, incidental, statutory,
treble or other multiple, punitive and consequential damages for
themselves and all class members.
Hicks and Vargas want to represent a nationwide class and New York
subclass of consumers who have purchased waterproof mascara
products from L'Oreal since 2018.
A similar class action lawsuit was filed against L'Oreal last month
by a consumer claiming the company hides from consumers that its
waterproof mascara products contain PFAS.
Have you purchased waterproof mascara products from L'Oreal? Let us
know in the comments!
You may qualify to join a toxic makeup class action lawsuit if you
purchased foundation, liquid lipstick or waterproof mascara. Click
here to find out more (links to paid attorney content).
The plaintiffs are represented by James Bilsborrow and Devin Bolton
of Weitz & Luxenberg, PC; Christopher A. Seeger, Jeff Grand and
Christopher Ayers of Seeger Weiss LLP; and Sam Strauss, Raina
Borrelli and Brittany Resch of Turke & Strauss LLP.
The L'Oreal Waterproof Mascara PFAS Class Action Lawsuit is Hicks,
et al. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01989, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
LEISURE COLLECTIVE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Leisure
Collective Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Leisure
Collective Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02106 (S.D.N.Y., March 14,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Leisure Collective -- http://www.theleisurecollective.com/--
is home to highly regarded surf hardware brand Creatures of
Leisure, eyewear brand OTIS and the newly released sito
shades.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LIGHTS LACQUER: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lights Lacquer, LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lights Lacquer, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02099 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lights Lacquer -- https://lightslacquer.com/ -- offers nail polish
with premium lacquer formula and one-of-a-kind application.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LITTLETON COIN: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Littleton Coin
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Littleton Coin
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02096 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Littleton Coin Company -- https://www.littletoncoin.com/ -- is an
employee-owned privately held major American mail order and retail
company focused on numismatic collectibles and based in Littleton,
New Hampshire.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
LOGAN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Following Hacking Incident
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon, writing for HealthITSecurity, reports that a victim of
a November hacking incident against Logan Health Medical Center
recently filed a class-action lawsuit against the Montana medical
center, alleging negligence and invasion of privacy. Logan Health
suffered a cyberattack in November 2021 that impacted 213,543
individuals.
Logan Health discovered suspicious network activity on November 22,
2021, and later found evidence of unauthorized access to one file
server containing information about patients, employees, and
business associates.
Specifically, the unauthorized actor may have had access to Social
Security numbers, names, email addresses, phone numbers, and birth
dates. Logan Health began notifying impacted individuals of the
event on February 22.
Logan Health said it was working to implement additional security
safeguards and employee training in light of the incident, as well
as providing 12 months of identity monitoring services to impacted
individuals.
But the lawsuit, filed by patient Allison Smeltz, alleged that 12
months of identity monitoring services was "grossly inadequate"
considering the extent of the breach. In addition, the lawsuit
claimed that Logan Health was negligent in preventing this data
breach considering its past.
"This data breach isn't the first time Logan Health has allowed
patient information to be compromised. The hospital has also
previously reported a January 2021 data breach to the Montana
Attorney General's Office that affected 2,081 Montanans," the
lawsuit stated.
"In 2019, Logan Health, under its previous name of Kalispell
Regional Healthcare, reported a breach to the Montana AG's Office
that affected 126,805 Montanans. Following the 2019 breach, Logan
Health claimed to be taking 'further steps to revise procedures
that will minimize the risk of a similar event happening again' and
that 'We . . . have taken steps to prevent similar events from
occurring in the future.'"
The plaintiff argued that if Logan Health had in fact implemented
additional safeguards in 2019, the 2021 breach might not have
happened. They also claimed that Logan Health should have known how
valuable protected health information (PHI) was on the black market
and prepared accordingly.
As a result of Logan Health's alleged negligence, the plaintiff
argued that data breach victims would suffer from the diminished
value of their PHI. In addition, patients will have to incur
out-of-pocket costs associated with identity theft prevention.
These claims of harm are often difficult to quantify, especially
since Ramirez v. TransUnion, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
data breach victims must demonstrate actual injury and prove that
the defendant's conduct caused the damage.
The June 2021 ruling signified a significant shift in how data
breaches are handled in court. Plaintiffs must now prove that they
suffered a concrete injury to claim Article III standing.
A judge recently dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed against
medical practice management company Practicefirst, citing
insufficient evidence of actual harm.
In the Logan Health case, the plaintiff also alleged that the
medical center violated the Montana Consumer Protection Act by
engaging in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices," including
failing to secure PHI and failing to disclose the breach in a
timely manner. [GN]
LUBRICANT STORE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lubricant Store,
LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Lubricant Store, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02104 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Lubricant Store -- https://www.thelubricantstore.com/ -- is
your one-stop shop for all your oil, grease and lubrication
needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2022, that a shareholder
derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on
December 3, 2019 against the company and certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors, alleging claims and
seeking relief. Marriot filed motions to dismiss in connection with
all of the U.S. cases. Its motions to dismiss the Securities Case
and the MDL Derivative Cases were granted in June 2021. The
plaintiff in the Securities Case has appealed the dismissal and
that appeal is still pending.
Marriot's motion to dismiss the Delaware derivative case was
granted in October 2021 and no appeal was filed.
Marriot is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of hotel,
residential, and timeshare properties under numerous brand names at
different price and service points.
MASTERCARD INC: GBP2.7BB Added to Claims in Interchange Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finextra reports that a GBP14 billion class action lawsuit against
Mastercard interchange fees has moved a step closer to trial with
an additional GBP2.7 billion added to the claim following the
latest judgement by the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal.
The CAT has ruled that former head of the UK Financial Ombudsman
Service Walter Merricks can represent every class member who was
alive on 6 September 2016, and has since died in the ongoing
litigation.
This follows an August ruling that gave Merrick the go-ahead to sue
Mastercard on behalf of 46 million claimants in the case, who would
receive around GBP300 each if successful.
On the CAT's estimates, the latest judgement means over three
million claims are preserved. Mastercard had tried to prevent them
from being included as part of its lengthy attempt at opposing
certification.
The CAT also allowed Merricks to plead a higher interest rate of 5%
above the prevailing Bank of England rate, and on current
estimates, this could add up to GBP2.7bn pounds to the GBP14bn
claim.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Boris Bronfentrinker says: "This
brings to a conclusion the one final outstanding issue that needed
to be resolved, and we now expect the Collective Proceedings Order
(CPO) to be made. As for the ruling itself, it is satisfying to see
that Mastercard's attempts to try and limit the ability of UK
consumers to recover have once again been rejected.
"We are also pleased that the Tribunal allowed us to amend the
claim to increase the amount of interest claimed based on a higher
percentage that more accurately reflects real borrowing costs,
disagreeing with Mastercard's objections. In the end, for all of
Mastercard's objections to the collective proceedings, they have
simply served to delay matters and thereby increase significantly
their liability for interest to the class and the amount of overall
damages sought.'
Merricks says the next hearing is expected to be in the CAT at the
end of July where his legal representatives will aim to get a
timetable to trial by having Mastercard hand over disclosure
documents, followed by written witness and expert evidence. [GN]
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Issues in Oregon Laborers Suit Fixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS PENSION TRUST FUND,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., HOWARD L. LANCE, and ANIL
WIRASEKARA, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC,
Consolidated with Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00758-WJM-SKC (D Colo.),
Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado issued an order resolving the pending
discovery disputes raised by the Parties' Joint Discovery Dispute
Report.
I. Background
The matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Discovery
Dispute Report. The parties previously contacted the Court in
compliance with its Civil Practice Standards for resolving
discovery disputes, and were instructed to file a Joint Discovery
Dispute Report. But the report the parties submitted did not comply
with the applicable practice standards, and therefore, the Court
ordered the parties to re-do and re-file their submission.
Judge Crews has reviewed the parties' compliant Joint Discovery
Dispute Report and finds no hearing is necessary. He exercises
discretion and issues the Order to resolve the pending discovery
disputes raised by the Joint Report.
The case is a purported securities class action alleging various
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It relates to
one pending in the Superior Court of California ("California Case")
which involves similar allegations, parties, and players. The
parties in the instant case, along with the counsel for the
plaintiff in the California Case, have agreed to a Deposition
Coordination Protocol to streamline and avoid redundancies in
depositions that are relevant to both cases.
The parties in the instant case and in the California Case have
agreed on the majority of the terms in the Deposition Protocol but
for two provisions: Whether the Deposition Protocol should (1)
address the Plaintiff's request to take 26 depositions in lieu of
the 10 provided by the Scheduling Order, and (2) prevent the
defense counsel from contacting a witness concerning the substance
of their testimony when a deposition cannot be taken on consecutive
days.
II. Discussion
A. Number of Depositions
The Court issued a Scheduling Order on Oct. 28, 2020. The
Scheduling Order limits each side to 10 depositions. When
submitting the proposed scheduling order, the Plaintiff did
indicate it anticipated it would need more than 10 depositions, but
is also indicated, if that were the case, it would confer and
petition the Court for additional depositions upon a showing of
good cause.
In this regard, Judge Crews does not find the proposed Deposition
Protocol is the appropriate vehicle to modify the Scheduling Order.
A protocol merely supplements a scheduling order and serves as a
procedural tool defining how the parties will conduct some aspect
of discovery allowed by a scheduling order. For these reasons,
Judge Crews agrees with the Defendant that the Deposition Protocol
should not address the limit on the number of depositions.
Therefore, he adopts the Defendants' proposed language -- "Nothing
in this protocol alters, changes, or impacts the provisions of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i)." The Plaintiff is
free, however, to file a motion seeking to modify the deposition
limits in the Scheduling Order. In the meantime, Judge Crews
encourages the parties to commence taking depositions based on the
current limitations.
B. Communicating with Deponents Between Deposition Days
Some depositions in the case may require multiple days to complete.
The Defendants represent they have agreed to use good-faith efforts
to make witnesses represented by their counsel available on
back-to-back calendar days, but many of the relevant witnesses no
longer work for Maxar and have full-time jobs with other
organizations, so their schedules are not within Maxar's control.
In the event witnesses cannot be available for back-to-back
calendar days, the Defendants have agreed to propose two dates
within a five-day period.
But the Plaintiff is concerned two-days in a five-day period will
become the Defendants' default to leverage an opportunity to speak
with a deponent between deposition days. So, the Plaintiff proposed
the following language for the Deposition Protocol: "During the
pendency of each deposition, there will be no contact between
counsel and the witness concerning the substance of the witness's
first day of testimony." Without more, Judge Crews declines to
impose this restriction.
Judge Crews is persuaded by the analysis in United States v. Philip
Morris Inc., 212 F.R.D. 418 (D.D.C. 2002). There, because
depositions were likely to exceed the presumptive one-day of seven
hours, in some instances by days, a special master recommended a
deposition guideline which prohibited counsel from consulting with
their clients during breaks in their depositions "regarding the
subject matter of the deposition." But the court rejected this
language. It noted clear "constitutional overtones and concerns
about any interference with or limitation on the ability of counsel
to confer with her witnesses (whether client or not), to strategize
about the case. It also found the term "subject matter of the
deposition" to be problematic -- "The term may be construed broadly
or narrowly, and may induce lawyers to err on the side of caution
and non-consultation to the possible detriment of their clients'
interests." Thus, the court declined to prohibit these
communications with counsel during non-consecutive deposition
days.
Judge Crews shares the views expressed in Philip Morris Inc. This
is particularly so when considering depositions have yet to be
taken or scheduled, and there is no showing the defense counsel has
attempted to abuse the deposition process. Other than when a
question posed to a deponent remains pending, Judge Crews will not
limit the counsel's discussions with a deponent during
non-consecutive deposition days. As officers of the Court, he
trusts and expects that all counsel will conduct themselves
appropriately and ethically during non-consecutive deposition days.
Nor will he order depositions occur on back-to-back days. While
Judge Crews expects the counsel to schedule depositions in good
faith and use their best efforts to schedule depositions on
back-to-back days, ordering the same when scheduling depositions
involves coordinating numerous attorney and witness schedules
across multiple states, would not be practical.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Judge Crews accepts the Defendants'
proposed language for paragraph 10 of the Deposition Protocol and
declines to order back-to-back deposition days or limit
communications with a deponent during any non-consecutive
deposition days (other than discussions with a deponent while a
question is pending). The parties are ordered to submit a joint
motion for entry of the deposition protocol, attaching a protocol
consistent with the Order, within seven days from the date of its
entry.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4k7yw5ta from Leagle.com.
MED1CARE LTD: Brank Sues Over Home Healthcare Staff's Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALONA BRANK, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MED1CARE, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00384-JZ
(N.D. Ohio, March 9, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged
failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all
overtime earned pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Ohio overtime compensation statute.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio who was employed by Defendant
as an hourly home healthcare provider within the last three years.
Med1Care, Ltd. provides various home health care and medical
staffing in Toledo, Findlay, and 26 surrounding Ohio counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
META PLATFORMS: Vincent Wong Reminds of May 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on March 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between March 2, 2021 and February 2, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Meta Platforms, Inc.,
contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There
is no cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/meta-platforms-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24603&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Meta Platforms, Inc.
includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Apple's
iOS privacy changes were having a material impact on Meta's ability
to provide the kind of targeted advertising that its customers
wanted and, as a result, customer ad spending was dropping
precipitously; (2) Meta's mitigation efforts were either not
properly implemented or ineffective; (3) measurement of ads was not
accurate as mitigation efforts were failing; and (4) Meta did not
have a plan in place to properly address the impact of the iOS
privacy changes.
DEADLINE: May 9, 2022
Aggrieved Meta Platforms, Inc. investors only have until May 9,
2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You
are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in
any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
MRS BPO: Waggett Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Jennifer Waggett, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01151-NLH-AMD (D.N.J., March 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
MRS BPO -- https://portal.mrsbpo.com/ -- is a full service accounts
receivable management (ARM) firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
MULLINS FOOD: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullins Food
Products, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Citizens Insurance
Company of America v. Mullins Food Products, Inc., Ricardo Galan,
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:22-cv-01334
(N.D. Ill., March 14, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Declaratory
Judgement (Insurance).
Mullins Food Products, Inc. -- https://www.mullinsfood.com/ --
manufactures food products. The Company offers sauces, mayonnaise,
salad dressings, syrups, condiments, and other food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Alan Goldwater, Esq.
Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 West Adams, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: (312) 345-1718
Email: Jeffrey.Goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com
kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com
NABORS COMPLETION: Ronquillo's Attorneys Awarded $341K in Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK RONQUILLO, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J
Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:21-cv-05535 DDP (JPRx)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted Ronquillo's Petition to
Confirm Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Nabors.
On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent Nabors,
Brandyn Ridgeway, and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action
alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Section
1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and
overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a),
and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class
action");
On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section
2, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and a written arbitration
agreement that included a class action waiver.
On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court denied Nabors' motion to compel
arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
Nabors timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration.
On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a
Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and
remanded with instructions.
On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Frank Ronquillo, a putative class
member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual
arbitration at JAMS. Ronquillo's individual claims were adjudicated
by JAMS Arbitrator Hon. Richard J. McAdams (Ret.) resulting in a
Final Arbitration Award issued June 29, 2021, in favor of
Ronquillo.
On July 8, 2021 Ronquillo filed the instant Petition to Confirm
Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer
and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award;
On Nov. 22, 2021 the Court granted the petition and confirmed the
JAMS Interim Arbitration Award, issued on March 25, 2021, and Final
Award, issued on June 29, 2021, in Ronquillo's Arbitration JAMS
Case No. 1220058935 and denied Nabors' request to vacate the
award.
On Feb. 8, 2022 the Court decided Ronquillo's Motion for Post-Award
Attorneys' Fees and granted the motion. It awarded Ronquillo
$24,970.50 in reasonable Post-Award attorneys' fees, and $400 in
costs.
Therefore, Judge Pregerson ordered that Petitioner Ronquillo will
recover against Respondent Nabors in the following amounts: Wages
in the amount of $103,786.96; Statutory interest thru Jan. 28, 2021
in the amount of $81,042.87 and continuing at $28.43 per day;
Statutory penalties in the amount of $22,431.20 under California
Labor Code Section 203(a); Statutory penalties in the amount of
$3,150 under California Labor Code Section 226(e); Attorneys' fees
in the amount of $341,076.25 and costs in the amount of $1,418.95
as awarded by the Arbitrator; and, Additional post-arbitration
attorneys' fees in the amount of $24,970.50 and $400 in costs
awarded by the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mrx4t9x2 from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Goodell Must Avoid Forced Arbitration of Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Graves, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Brian
Flores wants NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to make sure his
class-action lawsuit against the league and several teams over
allegedly racist hiring practices isn't settled behind closed
doors.
Flores said Monday if Goodell truly wants to bring the kind of
change the NFL's top executive has talked about in the wake of the
former Miami Dolphins head coach's unprecedented legal maneuver,
then Goodell should make sure the case is adjudicated by a jury of
Flores' peers rather than in arbitration.
"I think Commissioner Goodell has the influence to do what's
right," Flores said during a teleconference with lawmakers to speak
in favor of the FAIR Act, which would end forced arbitration. "I
don't think you can create that change in a secret setting, a
confidential setting. . . . I think he has influence to make sure
that (a jury trial) happens."
Flores, hired as a senior defensive assistant for the Pittsburgh
Steelers last month, filed his lawsuit against the NFL, Dolphins,
New York Giants and Denver Broncos following his dismissal by
Miami. Flores led the Dolphins to consecutive winning seasons
before he was fired in January.
Miami requested the case go to an arbitrator last month.
Flores' lawsuit alleges the league has discriminated against him
and other Black coaches for racial reasons, denying them positions
as head coaches, offensive and defensive coordinators and
quarterbacks coaches, as well as general managers. Flores also
claims Miami offered him $100,000 per loss during his first season
with the team in 2019 in an effort to receive a top draft pick.
Flores, speaking on a panel that included Democratic Congressmen
Hank Johnson of Georgia and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, said he
wasn't aware when he signed his contract with Miami in 2019 that
the Dolphins could force him into arbitration.
"The last thing you're thinking about is arbitration clause that,
if it all goes wrong . . . . or if you're wronged, you're going to
be forced into a setting where really the odds are stacked against
you," Flores said. "That's not what you're thinking about."
Flores isn't sure knowing would have changed his decision anyway.
"Even if I did know, where's the bargaining power?" Flores said.
"What, am I going to say no? There's an unfairness there. It's
obvious."
The FAIR Act, which was set to be considered in Congress, would
prevent employers from hiding forced arbitration clauses in the
fine print of employee paperwork and consumer agreements. Flores
believes taking away that option would better protect employees.
Flores added that the NFL's Rooney Rule, which requires teams to
interview outside minority candidates for top positions on the
coaching staff and in the front office, is well-intended but
flawed.
"If there is going to be real change, whether it's from a head
coach, general manager or even ownership level, there is going to
have to be some type of oversight over those hiring practices and
firing practices in the NFL," he said. "That is going to have to
come from an outside source. If there's a solution to that, I think
that's what it is."
While Flores is taking a stand in hopes of creating more
opportunities for minorities in the NFL, he believes forced
arbitration is a roadblock to progress in all lines of work.
"With this system in place, how can we believe real justice and
real change can occur?" Flores said. "They know it's a rigged
system where they know they truly can't get justice. . . . I know
this doesn't just happen in football, it happens in all
industries." [GN]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Santos Suit Removed to D. Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christina I. Santos, John M. Santos, Judith Ann
Kraus, Denise L. Belanger, on behalf of themselves and all others
so similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (NKA Mr. Cooper),
Case No. PC2022-00652, was removed from the Providence County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island on March 11, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00103 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Real Property: Foreclosure.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (NKA Mr. Cooper) --
https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services. The Company
provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Krystle Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: (401) 274-9200
Fax: (401) 276-6611
Email: krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com
NEW JERSEY: Settles Incarcerated Students' IDEA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Departments of Corrections and Department of
Education have agreed to settle claims that incarcerated students
with disabilities were denied special education.
The settlement benefits individuals who were incarcerated in a New
Jersey prison between Jan. 11, 2015, and Oct. 31, 2020 and met any
of the following descriptions:
1. They were identified as being entitled to special education
services or other educational accommodations
2. They had a verified Individual Education Program (IEP) before or
during prison time
3. They were diagnosed with an educational disability and an IEP
was being developed for them while in prison but wasn't finished
before their prison release
4. They were born after Jan. 11, 1993, were under the age of 18
when they entered prison, and did not have a high school diploma
when they entered prison
The Department of Corrections in New Jersey is responsible for
managing and operating prisons and jails within the state. However,
the department may fail to provide education services to
incarcerated students with disabilities.
In 2017, students took legal action against the New Jersey
Department of Corrections and Department of Education, alleging
their rights were violated when they were denied education in
prison.
Students, including those in solitary confinement, were allegedly
denied special education services despite being entitled to these
services through the age of 21.
"Whether in a cage or a classroom, NJDOC has failed and continues
to fail youth with disabilities, utterly ignoring a key component
of rehabilitation: a meaningful education," Mary-Lee Smith,
director of Litigation at Disability Rights Advocates, said in a
statement following the class action lawsuit's filing. "Youth with
disabilities do not check their civil rights at the door of adult
prison facilities."
The New Jersey departments of Education and Corrections haven't
admitted any wrongdoing, but agreed to resolve these allegations
with a class action settlement.
The settlement allows students to receive education services as
compensation for services not received while in prison.
Under the settlement terms, Class Members can receive up to $8,000
for educational, vocational, or re-entry services for each year
they should have received services in prison. Eligible services
include third-party education programs, colleges, technical
schools, and more.
Also as part of the settlement, the New Jersey Department of
Corrections agreed to revise its policies surrounding special
education. Under these changes, the department will assess
education levels of students entering prison, develop IEPs, provide
education services, and make other changes to ensure a quality
special education for those with disabilities. A full list of
changes can be found on the settlement website.
The New Jersey Department of Education has agreed to monitor these
changes for five years to ensure they are implemented properly.
After the five years, the Department of Corrections will be
monitored by the Department of Education in the same way that
public schools are monitored.
The deadline for objection was Jan. 26, 2022.
The deadline for exclusion is two years after the settlement's
effective date, estimated to be January 2024.
The settlement was granted final approval on March 3, 2022.
In order to receive compensatory education, Class Members must
submit a valid claim form within two years of the settlement's
effective date, estimated to be January 2024.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals who were incarcerated in a New
Jersey prison between Jan. 11, 2015, and Oct. 31, 2020 and met any
of the following descriptions:
-- They were identified as being entitled to special education
services or other educational accommodations
-- They had a verified Individual Education Program (IEP) before or
during prison time
-- They were diagnosed with an educational disability and an IEP
was being developed for them while in prison but wasn't finished
before their prison release
-- They were born after Jan. 11, 1993, were under the age of 18
when they entered prison, and did not have a high school diploma
when they entered prison
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase admissible
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
01/31/2024 (Estimated)
Case Name
Adam X. v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, Case No.
3:17-cv-00188-FLW-LHG, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey
Final Hearing
03/03/2022
Settlement Website
ACLU-NJ.org
Claims Administrator
Unspecified
Class Counsel
Jeanne LoCicero Legal Director
ACLU OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION
Tess Borden Staff Attorney
ACLU OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION
Andrea Kozak-Oxnard
STAFF ATTORNEY DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
William Silverman
PARTNER PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Defense Counsel
New Jersey Department of Corrections
Michael Vomacka
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
New Jersey Department of Education
Michal Czarnecki
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Black and Latinx High School Students' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on March 14 disclosed that on
Wednesday, March 9, the Firm secured a significant victory for its
pro bono client, IntegrateNYC Inc. and a class of Black and Latinx
New York City high school students, when the Patterson Belknap
team, along with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI),
reached a final settlement agreement with the New York City
Department of Education and The Public Schools Athletic League. The
settlement will end policies that systemically denied Black and
Latinx students access to the same athletic opportunities as
students of other races and ethnicities. Previously, 17,000 New
York City Black and Latinx public high school students had no
sports teams at their public high schools. The settlement agreement
will permit schools located near one another to play under one
sports program, creating Shared Access Programs. This will provide
access to far more sports for students from predominantly Black and
Latinx schools. [GN]
OHIO: Approval of Brush's Bid to Dismiss Nalls Suit Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY NALLS, Plaintiff v. STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3-21-cv-238 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge
Michael R. Merz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, Dayton, recommended that
Defendant Michael Brush's Motion to Dismiss be granted.
I. Background
Plaintiff Nalls brought the action pro se to complain, inter alia,
of actions of Attorney Brush who was appointed to represent Nalls
in a pending felony case in the Montgomery County Court of Common
Pleas, State v. Nalls, Case No 20 CR 1992. Nalls has been indicted
on 18 counts with illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented
material or performance, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor
having weapons under disability with a prior offense of violence,
gross sexual imposition by force, and sexual imposition on a victim
older than thirteen but less than sixteen with a prior conviction.
According to that docket, Nalls' case is set for trial March 21,
2022, before The Honorable Gerald Parker; Brush was permitted to
withdraw as defense counsel July 20, 2021.
The Plaintiff purports to bring the action for violation of his
rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution and bases jurisdiction on his
assertion that the Complaint states a claim or claims arising under
federal law (28 U.S.C. Section 1331).
Defendant Brush first complains that Nalls has purported to bring
the action on behalf of himself "and the undersigned." Brush notes
that Nalls is not an attorney licensed to practice before the Court
and therefore cannot bring a lawsuit on behalf of others.
The Plaintiff responds that he is not attempting to represent for
other Plaintiffs, nor practice law without a degree as alleged. He
is merely composer of the collective works of complaints of
identical interest that, if the Plaintiffs filed separately to the
Court, in forma paupis, the complaints would, thereafter, be joined
into class-action with appointment of counsel. The Plaintiffs
motion requesting the Court appoints counsel was drafted
handwritten and sent to concerned citizens for filing Sept. 4, 2021
and just five days after filing of the Plaintiffs' complaint to the
Court, which demonstrates the Plaintiff's intent is not to
represent in the matter but to seek counsel from the Court for
representation.
Although claiming he is not representing other persons, Judge Merz
finds that Nalls claims at Branch III of this same Motion to Deny
to make arguments on behalf of "plaintiff Daniel Silveira." Nalls
also attaches an Affidavit of Silveira detailing claims he has
against Attorney Antony Abboud who apparently was retained to
represent Silveira in another criminal case pending in the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Nalls has also made
arguments and filed papers on behalf of Charles Stutz and referred
to him as a plaintiff.
Judge Merz rejects Nalls' theory that as a degreed paralegal he can
accumulate grievances of other persons and then join them in a
complaint with his own grievances and bring one lawsuit. Daniel
Silveira and Charles Stutz are not plaintiffs in the case and
Plaintiff Nalls is not authorized to make arguments or to sign or
file papers on behalf of either of them. Messrs. Silveira and Stutz
are of course free to sue on their own behalf. The question of
whether the case should be certified as a class action is not now
before the Court.
Defendant Brush moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), to
dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II. Discussion
First, in responding to the subject matter jurisdiction branch of
Brush's Motion to Dismiss, Nalls reminds the Court that it is bound
to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Doing so, Judge Merz finds
Nalls has alleged that Defendant Brush "colluded" with other
Defendants to deprive him of his constitutional rights in his
pending criminal case. Because Nalls alleges that Brush "colluded"
with various state actors to deprive him of his constitutional
rights and such a conspiracy is actionable under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, Judge Merz holds that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim.
Second, the gravamen of Nalls' claim against Brush is that Brush
failed to deliver to Nalls a set of documents identified as
Exhibits A-N1 which would allegedly exonerate him by proving that a
prior conviction was wrongful. In addition, Brush is alleged to
have filed a meritless motion to suppress and motions for
continuance which are alleged to have had the effect of violating
Nalls' right to a speedy trial. Taken together, these allegations
amount to a claim that Brush provided ineffective assistance of
trial counsel in the pending case.
Judge Merz holds that although Nalls fairly concretely alleges the
acts taken or omitted by Brush, he has not sufficiently pleaded a
conspiracy with state actors to do these acts with the motive of
having Nalls convicted. All that Nalls does to allege a conspiracy
is to add the label "collusion" to Brush's acts. When two or more
actors participate in an event or series of events, such as a
criminal prosecution, and some other actor (e.g. the defendant in
such a prosecution) feels aggrieved by the outcome, it is easy to
label what has happened as a "conspiracy." But in the absence of
some pleaded material facts to support that label, Nalls has failed
the "fairly strict" pleading requirements for Section 1983.
Obviously, the fact that Nalls asserts that Brush has received a
pejorative nickname from Montgomery County Jail inmates is
insufficient.
Aside from the conclusory nature of Nalls' conspiracy allegations,
his Section 1983 claims against Brush are barred by the doctrine of
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994), Judge Merz states.
Nalls has not yet been convicted in the Common Pleas case, but an
adjudication in the Court of Nalls' claims against Brush would
render any such conviction invalid by determining that Brush has
provided ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, Judge Merz respectfully
recommended that the Defendant Brush's Motion to Dismiss be
granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Report &
Recommendation Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ta7nte9
from Leagle.com.
OK FOODS: Must Face Data Breach Class Action in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that OK Foods
Inc., a large-scale chicken producer, must face a proposed class
action stemming from a data breach which allegedly compromised
employees' personal information because of the risk of identity
theft, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled.
Clarissa Coffey sued her employer in 2021, after allegedly learning
that an unknown third party accessed an OK Foods email which
contained the personal information of employees. Coffey, who had
worked at OK Foods since 2016, says that employees' names,
birthdates, addresses, and social security numbers were
compromised. [GN]
PEABODY ENERGY: Judge Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP on March 14 disclosed that on March 7,
2022, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative
class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against a coal mining company and certain of its executives.
In re Peabody Energy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-8024 (PKC), slip
op. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2022), ECF No. 50. Plaintiff alleged that the
company made misrepresentations concerning its safety practices, a
fire that took place at one of its mines, and its ability to
subsequently reopen that mine and resume operations. The Court held
that the complaint adequately alleged misrepresentations and
scienter with respect to the mine fire but dismissed the remaining
challenged statements as non-actionable puffery, protected
forward-looking statements, or statements of opinion.
The Court first assessed the timeliness of certain claims that
challenged statements concerning the company's commitment to
safety. Defendants argued that the claims were untimely because
they were filed more than two years after the company disclosed the
mine fire; this meant, according to defendants, that the claims
were not brought within two years of when plaintiff discovered or
reasonably should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged
misstatement, as required by the Exchange Act's statute of
limitations. Slip op. at 21. The Court, however, rejected
defendants' arguments that the disclosure of the fire would have
made it obvious to a reasonably diligent investor that other
statements regarding the company's safety practices were false. Id.
at 22.
The Court next evaluated statements the company made concerning the
mine that caught fire, concluding that plaintiff adequately alleged
that those statements constituted actionable misrepresentations.
Plaintiff argued that the company made a series of statements days
after the fire broke out that were misleading, because they failed
to disclose that the mine was then on fire. Id. at 11-12. For
instance, the company stated that gas levels at the mine "have been
variable and remain elevated," that the company was working with
mining inspectors to "continue a progress plan aimed at reducing
gas levels and accommodating a safe return to mining operations,"
and then separately stated that personnel had observed smoke coming
from the mine. Id. The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged
that such statements were misleading, explaining that defendants
had "a duty to disclose the whole truth" in their statements
regarding conditions at the company's most profitable mine, namely,
that there was likely a fire burning at that mine. Id. at 24.
With respect to statements the company had made prior to the fire
concerning its commitment to safety, the Court explained these
statements were non-actionable puffery or otherwise were not
adequately alleged to be false. The Court first explained that
statements touting the importance of safety—such as "safety is
the most important" and that the company "maintains constant
vigilance toward safety"—were puffery as they were simply too
"general and self-congratulatory" to have been relied upon by a
reasonable investor. Id. at 25–26. With respect to statements
touting the company's safety record—such as that the company
"achieved record safety this past year" and that at "the
operational level, our global safety performance continues to
surpass industry averages"—the Court concluded that plaintiff
failed to plausibly allege that the statements were false when
made. Id. at 28. While plaintiff alleged that the company was on
notice of certain safety issues at the mine, the Court noted that
the company had also disclosed the risk of mine fires and the
possibility that fire could disrupt operations, such that the
challenged statements were not misleading in context. Id. at 29.
The Court then addressed statements the company made following the
fire concerning its ability to resume mining operations. The Court
concluded that all these statements were non-actionable,
forward-looking statements or non-actionable statements of opinion.
For example, when the company announced the mine was on fire, it
noted that it "did not expect any production from [the mine] in the
fourth quarter of 2018," and that "[i]t is too early to assess the
full financial impact to future periods as a result of the ongoing
issue." Id. at 31. The Court explained that plaintiff failed to
allege that the first forward-looking statement was false, and that
the second statement was accompanied by cautionary language that it
was "too early to assess" the situation in full. Id. In addition,
the Court explained that a challenged statement that the company's
efforts to extinguish the fire had "yielded visible results" was a
non-actionable opinion statement and plaintiff failed to allege
that it was misleading when considered in the context of the
ongoing response to a major fire. Id. at 32.
With respect to scienter, the Court held that plaintiff raised a
"cogent and compelling inference" of scienter, on a theory of
conscious misbehavior or recklessness, as to the statements failing
to promptly disclose the mine fire. Id. at 43. The Court emphasized
that the company had assembled a task force that included the CEO
and CFO to assess the situation at the mine, and that the task
force was in place at the time that smoke was observed coming from
the main fan shaft of the mine. Id. The Court determined that
plaintiff adequately alleged that the CEO and CFO knew either on
the day the fire started or shortly thereafter that the mine was on
fire, and yet allowed statements to be issued to the public that
omitted any references to "smoke" or "fire." Id. at 44.
Lastly, the Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's control person
claims against the company's CEO and CFO, emphasizing their role on
the company's task force at the time of the mine fire and their
involvement in coordinating the company's public response to the
fire. Id. at 44–45. [GN]
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: All Claims in UFCW Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 464A, TRUSTEES OF WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS OF LOCAL
464A—PENSION FUND, TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT PLAN FOR OFFICERS,
BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES OF LOCAL 464A,
TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 464A FINAST FULL TIME EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN,
TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 464A WELFARE AND PENSION BUILDING INC., TRUSTEES
OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY AMALGAMATED PENSION PLAN FOR ACME EMPLOYEES,
and NEW MEXICO STATE INVESTMENT COUNCIL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE
CORPORATION, JAYSON J. PENN, WILLIAM W. LOVETTE, and FABIO SANDRI,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-cv-01966-RM-MEH (D. Colo.), Judge
Raymond P. Moore of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and dismissed
all claims in the case with prejudice.
I. Background
Lead Plaintiff New Mexico State Investment Council brings the
action against Defendant Pilgrim's and three of its officers on
behalf of all persons or entities that acquired common stock of the
corporation between Feb. 9, 2017, and June 2, 2020. Pilgrim's is
one of the nation's leading chicken producers. Since 2011, the
three individual Defendants have consecutively served as Pilgrim's
president and CEO.
The 110-page Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. In essence, the Lead Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants deceived investors by touting Pilgrim's performance
during the class period while continuing to participate in an
undisclosed and illegal bid-rigging conspiracy.
In press releases, investor presentations, and public filings with
the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC"), the Defendants made
numerous statements attributing Pilgrim's performance to, inter
alia, "its efficient operations, broad product portfolio and
purportedly strong relationships with its key customers." The Lead
Plaintiff asserts that these statements and numerous others were
false and misleading because Pilgrim's "purportedly strong results
were artificially inflated by Defendants' illegal bid-rigging
scheme."
On June 3, 2020, the day after the class period ends, the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed an indictment against Defendant
Penn and others for criminal antitrust violations stemming from
their alleged involvement in a conspiracy involving Pilgrim's and
several other large broiler producers to fix prices and rig bids
for broiler chickens. According to the indictment, the scheme began
at least as early as 2012 and continued through at least early
2017. Pilgrim's stock price fell by 12.4% on that news.
On Oct. 6, 2020, the DOJ filed a superseding indictment naming
additional defendants, including Defendant Lovette, and extending
the period of the alleged bid-rigging scheme through at least 2019.
A week later, the DOJ filed separate criminal charges against
Pilgrim's, which later pleaded guilty to participating "through
2017" in a conspiracy to suppress competition by rigging bids and
fixing prices for broiler chicken products. Pilgrim's agreed to pay
a criminal fine of about $108 million. Proceedings on the criminal
charges against Defendants Penn and Lovette (and other alleged
conspirators) are ongoing.
II. Analysis
The Defendants, collectively, argue the Complaint insufficiently
pleads at least three of the elements of a securities fraud claim:
Falsity, scienter, and loss causation. Judge Moore finds the
failure to plead falsity is dispositive and therefore need not
address the Defendants' arguments regarding the other elements.
A. Sufficiency of Allegations Regarding Causation
To begin with, Judge Moore finds that nearly all the alleged
conduct in the Complaint related to the bid-rigging scheme precedes
the class period, much of it by years. Although the Lead Plaintiff
argues that Defendants Penn's and Lovette's indictments and their
"personal involvement in the bid-rigging scheme unequivocally
establish that they had direct knowledge of the concealed facts
that rendered the Defendants' Class Period statements materially
false and misleading," Defendant Penn's latest alleged involvement
in the scheme was in March 2015, and Defendant Lovette's was in May
2016. Moreover, the Complaint lacks particularized allegations
connecting their specific conduct to any specific statements made
during the class period.
Beyond the alleged involvement of these Defendants, Judge Moore
also finds that the Complaint also alleges some involvement by
Pilgrim's employees that occurred in 2017. However, the Complaint
does not identify any contracts resulting from this conduct or
otherwise explain how such conduct rendered any particular
statements made during the class period false or misleading. And
although Pilgrim's plea agreement states that its participation
continued through 2017, the agreement identifies only one affected
contract extending into 2017.
Under these circumstances, Judge Moore finds the Lead Plaintiff has
not met its high burden under the PSLRA to state with particularity
a factual basis for its belief that the bid-rigging scheme
significantly contributed to Pilgrim's success during the class
period such that its statements attributing its success to other
factors were materially false or misleading.
B. Sufficiency of Allegations Regarding Financial Impact
Judge Moore holds that the Lead Plaintiff's allegations are also
insufficient because the Complaint does not contain particularized
facts that establish a central premise of the Lead Plaintiff's
fraud claims--that Pilgrim's "success was driven by Defendants'
illegal bid-rigging scheme." He says, the Complaint provides ample
factual assertions gleaned from Pilgrim's plea agreement and the
indictments that support the existence of an antitrust conspiracy,
but the Lead Plaintiff has not shown that the bid-rigging scheme
had such a significant impact on Pilgrim's bottom line that it
could be credited with turning around the company following its
filing for bankruptcy in 2008 or with driving its success during
the class period. Indeed, the Lead Plaintiff makes almost no
attempt to quantify the financial impact of the scheme. The
allegation that Pilgrim's profits fell from almost $457 million in
2019 to about $95 million in 2020 merely identifies a correlation.
But to establish causation, the Lead Plaintiff needed to present
particularized allegations connecting the bid-rigging scheme and
Pilgrim's bottom line. It has failed to do so.
In other words, the Lead Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient
to establish that the bid-rigging scheme was a material source of
Pilgrim's "success" during the class period or that it
"artificially inflated" the price of Pilgrim's stock. The absence
of particularized allegations that Pilgrim's business results were
attributable to the bid-rigging scheme, the Lead Plaintiff faces
another insurmountable hurdle to proving that the statements or
omissions it relies upon were materially false or misleading. Thus,
the lack of particularized allegations pertaining to the actual
impact of the bid-rigging scheme provides another basis for
dismissing the claims in the case.
C. Sufficiency of Allegations Regarding False or Misleading
Statements
The Defendants are also entitled to dismissal of the claims against
them because the Lead Plaintiff has not identified statements that
are materially false or misleading, Judge Moore holds. He says,
Pilgrim's generally attributed its financial results during the
class period to a variety of factors, including its leading market
position in the chicken industry, broad product portfolio, and
strong customer relationships. He finds that the bulk, if not all,
of the statements relied upon in the Complaint are not actionable
because they constitute vague statements of corporate optimism that
are incapable of objective verification. The Lead Plaintiff's
reliance such statements is misplaced because they amount to little
more than generalized statements about factors that, broadly
speaking, contributed to Pilgrim's bottom line.
First, such statements are not capable of objective verification.
Second, reasonable investors simply do not rely on generic
expressions of optimism associated with a corporation's "efficient
operations," "strong relationships with its key customers,"
"results-oriented corporate culture," or collective "vision." Thus,
the lack of actionable statements provides another basis for
granting the Defendants' Motions.
D. Sufficiency of Allegations Regarding Duty to Disclose
Finally, Judge Moore rejects the Lead Plaintiff's contention that
the Defendants had a duty to disclose its bid-rigging scheme "in
order to prevent their statements to investors from being
misleading." He holds that absent a duty to disclose, silence
cannot serve as the basis for liability on a securities fraud
claim. The fact that Pilgrim's has pleaded guilty to allegations
against it does not change the calculus in the case, because the
conduct that forms the basis of Pilgrim's conviction is
insufficiently tied to any statements or omissions made during the
class period, and the statements relied on are too vague and
indefinite to give rise to a duty to disclose.
E. Sufficiency of Allegations Regarding Section 20(a) Claim
The Lead Plaintiff's failure to state a claim under Section 10(b)
precludes its ability to state a claim under Section 20(a).
III. Conclusion
Therefore, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are granted, and the
Clerk is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2nj6pnez from Leagle.com.
PRETTY WOMEN: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Clark Kauffman, writing for Iowa Capital Dispatch, reports that an
exotic dancer has filed a class-action lawsuit against the West Des
Moines club where she allegedly worked without salary and had to
pay the owner for the right to work for tips.
Cierra Turner is suing the company Pretty Women Inc., which owns
the gentleman's club Beach Girls; J.P. Parking, which is alleged to
be "effectively the same company" as Pretty Women Inc.; the two
companies' president, James Petry of Warren County; and Beach
Girls' manager Kent O'Connell of Polk County.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Iowa, alleges violations of state and federal minimum-wage laws,
unjust enrichment, and unlawful tip sharing.
O'Connell, the club's manager, declined to comment on the case on
March 14.
Turner alleges that from January 2019 to June 2020, she worked as
an exotic dancer at Beach Girls, located at 6220 Raccoon River
Drive in West Des Moines. Turner claims the club misclassified its
dancers as "independent contractors" for whom the minimum-wage law
does not apply and then refused to provide her with a minimum-wage
salary.
Turner claims her only compensation was in the form of tips from
the club's patrons, and that she was required to pay to pay the
owners a "house fee" of $40 for every shift she worked. Some of the
money she collected in tips had to then be shared with other
workers, such as disc jockeys, or routed back to the club's owner.
"Essentially, defendants took money from plaintiff under the
premise that she had to pay for her space at the club," the lawsuit
alleges. "Defendants chose to maximize the business's profit at the
expense of plaintiff and class members."
The lawsuit also states that Turner and other women who worked as
dancers were required to share their tips with other employees who
do not customarily collect tips for their work.
On behalf of Turner and all other similarly situated dancers,
Turner's lawyers are seeking unspecified damages, back pay,
restitution, interest, attorney's fees and court costs.
"Defendants employ exotic dancers and have employed hundreds of
dancers over the years at Beach Girls," the lawsuit claims. The
club also sells keychains, T-shirts, and calendars featuring the
employees.
Turner alleges she and other dancers worked, on average, three
six-hour shifts each week. Some of the dancers "sometimes completed
a full shift only to owe Beach Girls money," the lawsuit claims.
Under federal law, employers can pay tipped employees as little as
$2.13 per hour. By refusing to let the dancers keep all of their
tips, however, the club allegedly violated the federal tip-pool law
and lost the right to claim a credit for those tips that could be
applied to the minimum-wage standards.
The lawsuit also alleges Beach Girls violated a state law that
allows an employer to pay as little as $4.35 per hour if the
company can prove the employee customarily and regularly receives
more than $30 per month in tips.
The women who worked for the club were allegedly required to
"perform private and semi-private dances," as well as "VIP-room
dances," under pricing guidelines set not by the dancers themselves
but by the club's management. In addition to the $40 fee they paid
to the club each shift, the dancers were allegedly charged $150 for
leaving work early. They also had to pay at least $5 per dance to
the club itself and pay the club $10 for every "VIP-room dance"
they performed, the lawsuit claims.
Although Turner is the sole plaintiff, her attorneys seek
class-action status in the case so that it can be pursued on behalf
of all dancers employed by the club at any time during the past
three years. The number of potential class-action plaintiffs in the
case "is believed to be well over 40," according to the lawsuit,
since the club employs dozens of dancers at any given time.
The defendants in the case have yet to file a response to the
lawsuit. [GN]
R.J. DOUGHERTY ASSOCIATES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.J. Dougherty
Associates LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. R.J. Dougherty
Associates LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02054 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
R. J. Dougherty Associates, Inc., doing business as Everglades
Boats -- https://www.evergladesboats.com/ -- manufactures and
repairs fishing boats. The Company offers center and dual console,
cabin, pilot, and other commercial boats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Henderson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
FLOSSIE HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00373-JBA (D. Conn., March 9, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair
debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's collection efforts with
respect to the alleged debt from Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to
suffer concrete and particularized harm, inter alia, because the
FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the legally protected right not to be
misled or treated unfairly with respect to any action regarding the
collection of any consumer debt.
As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading, unfair,
unconscionable, and false debt collection practices, Plaintiff has
been damaged, says the suit.
Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. is a manager and servicer of
domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for credit
grantors and debt buyers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of May 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on March 14
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased the common stock of Rivian Automotive, Inc.
("Rivian" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: RIVN) issued in connection
with its Initial Public Offering ("IPO") conducted on or about
November 10, 2021.
If you purchased Rivian common stock issued in connection with the
IPO, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no
later than May 6, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be
affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as
your counsel in the action.
Rivian investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, text
or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff
Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Rivian Securities Class Litigation
Rivian, based in Irvine, California, is an electric vehicle ("EV")
automaker and automotive technology company. The Company's first
EVs, announced in 2018, are the R1T electric pickup truck and the
R1S electric SUV. Sales of the R1T began in September 2021, while
sales of the R1S were scheduled to begin in December 2021. In a
registration statement filed with the Securities Exchange
Commission and declared effective on November 9, 2021, Rivian
announced that as of October 31, 2021, "approximately 55,400 R1T
and R1S preorders in the United States and Canada from customers
who paid a cancellable and fully refundable deposit of $1,000." At
the time, Rivian aimed to manufacture about 1,200 R1Ts and 25 R1Ss
by the end of 2021 and forecasted that it would fulfill the backlog
of 55,400 vehicles by the end of 2023. On November 10, 2021, Rivian
launched its IPO, offering 153 million shares of its stock at a
price of $78.00 per share, generating total proceeds of $11.93
billion.
The action alleges that the registration statement Rivian filed in
connection with the IPO failed to disclose that: (1) Rivian's R1T
and R1S vehicles were underpriced, requiring Rivian to raise prices
after the IPO; (2) subsequent price increases would damage Rivian's
image of trustworthiness and transparency; (3) a significant number
of the existing backlog of 55,400 preorders along with future
preorders would be placed in jeopardy of cancellation; and (4) as a
result, Rivian's business metrics and prospects would be weaker
than represented in the registration statement.
On March 1, 2022, Rivian announced that it was raising the prices
of its R1T pickup and R1S SUV by 17 percent and 20 percent,
respectively, and that the new prices would apply to nearly all
preorders. At that time, Rivian had only produced and sold roughly
1,000 vehicles. However, the number of preorders for the R1T and
R1S had grown to approximately 71,000 as of December 15, 2021. On
this news, the price of Rivian's shares had fallen $5.65 per share,
or 8.36%, from its previous closing price of $67.56 per share on
February 28, 2022, to $61.91 per share. Rivian shares plummeted
further the following day, closing at $53.56 per share on March 2,
2022.
The following day, Rivian's CEO issued a letter to customers,
apologizing for breaking their trust and stating that the Company
would honor original prices for preorders placed prior to the price
increase announcement. On this news, Rivian's stock fell an
additional $2.65 per share, or 4.95%, from its previous closing
price of $53.56 per share on March 2, 2022, to $50.91 per share.
By March 7, 2022, Rivian shares were trading at $42.43 per share,
almost half of their $78.00 IPO price.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is an
internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing the
rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The
National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the
nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. Law360 has
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide
for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting
that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of
the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world."
Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10
Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
CONTACT:
Sharon M. Lee
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN]
SALVATION ARMY: Clancy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CLANCY, STUART LOVE, and MERRICK MANN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
SALVATION ARMY, an Illinois nonprofit corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01250 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2022) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity
Wage Act.
The Defendant has approximately 120 Salvation Army residential
adult rehabilitation centers and adult rehabilitation programs
(ARCs) across the United States, approximately 21 of which are
located in the Salvation Army Central Territory. Thousands of
vulnerable individuals -- people who are unhoused or marginally
housed, who are very poor, who have drug or alcohol addiction
problems, who are entangled in the criminal justice system, and/or
who suffer from mental illness -- enroll in Defendant's ARCs
annually. Some enroll voluntarily, while others do so as an
alternative to incarceration.
According to the complaint, the cornerstone of all of Defendant's
ARCs is that all ARC workers must perform at least 40 hours per
week, and often more, of difficult work for Defendant. In exchange
for the ARC workers' full-time labor, Defendant pays wages to the
ARC workers that start as low as $1 per week and may increase each
week up to a maximum of no more than approximately $21 per week,
well below the minimum wage required by the FLSA and applicable
state laws.
The Plaintiffs, who entered the Salvation Army ARC on Des Plaines
Street in Chicago, Illinois and completed the said program, allege
that Defendant has, at all relevant times, a policy or practice
that violates FLSA and applicable state laws.
The Salvation Army is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable
organization.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christine E. Webber, Esq.
Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
Kalpana Kotagal, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
kkotagal@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Michael Hancock, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: mhancock@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Gay Grunfeld, Esq.
Michael Freedman, Esq.
Priyah Kaul, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
mfreedman@rbgg.com
pkaul@rbgg.com
- and -
Jessica Riggin, Esq.
Valerie Brender, Esq.
RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 290
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 421-1800
Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
E-mail: jriggin@rukinhyland.com
vbrender@rukinhyland.com
SALVATION ARMY: Geiser Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GEISER, SHAUN HALLORAN, AVERY ACKER, CHRISTINA AQUILINO, and
JOSHUA FRASER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE SALVATION ARMY, a New York nonprofit
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01968 (S.D.N.Y., March 9,
2022) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime compensation and failure to provide wage notice
and wage statements as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Maine Minimum Wage Law.
The Defendant has approximately 120 Salvation Army residential
adult rehabilitation centers and adult rehabilitation programs
(ARCs) across the United States, approximately 21 of which are
located in the Salvation Army Central Territory. Thousands of
vulnerable individuals -- people who are unhoused or marginally
housed, who are very poor, who have drug or alcohol addiction
problems, who are entangled in the criminal justice system, and/or
who suffer from mental illness -- enroll in Defendant's ARCs
annually. Some enroll voluntarily, while others do so as an
alternative to incarceration.
According to the complaint, the cornerstone of all of Defendant's
ARCs is that all ARC workers must perform at least 40 hours per
week, and often more, of difficult work for Defendant. In exchange
for the ARC workers' full-time labor, Defendant pays wages to the
ARC workers that start as low as $1 per week and may increase each
week up to a maximum of no more than approximately $21 per week,
well below the minimum wage required by the FLSA and applicable
state laws.
The Plaintiffs, who entered the Salvation Army ARC and completed
the said program, allege that Defendant has at all relevant times,
a policy or practice that violates FLSA and applicable state laws.
The Salvation Army is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable
organization.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
Kalpana Kotagal, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
kkotagal@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Michael Hancock, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: mhancock@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Gay Grunfeld, Esq.
Michael Freedman, Esq.
Priyah Kaul, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
mfreedman@rbgg.com
pkaul@rbgg.com
- and -
Jessica Riggin, Esq.
Valerie Brender, Esq.
RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 290
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 421-1800
Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
E-mail: jriggin@rukinhyland.com
vbrender@rukinhyland.com
SHATTUCK LABS: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on March 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Shattuck securities: (1) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with Shattuck's October 2020 initial public
offering; and/or (2) between October 9, 2020 and November 9, 2021,
inclusive.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Shattuck, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/shattuck-labs-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24584&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Shattuck includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
collaboration agreement with Takeda was not solid; (2) Takeda and
Shattuck would "mutually agree" to terminate the collaboration
agreement in essentially one year; (3) as a result, Shattuck would
cease to receive any future milestone, royalty, or other payments
from Takeda; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.
DEADLINE: April 1, 2022
Aggrieved Shattuck investors only have until April 1, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
SOCLEAN INC: Faces Bailey Suit Over Harmful CPAP Cleaning Device
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDDIE BAILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-10523-DML-JJCG (E.D. Mich., March 10, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged failure to provide immediate notice of the
adverse health effects associated with continued use of clean
continuous positive airway pressure machines.
SoClean manufactures and markets devices used to clean continuous
positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, which treat sleep apnea
since approximately 2012.
According to the complaint, SoClean has used false and misleading
representations about its devices to market the SoClean 2 CPAP
Sanitizing Machine, the SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing machine, and
their predecessor devices (collectively, the SoClean devices).
Allegedly, SoClean's representations are designed to mislead
consumers into believing that the machine uses a benign form of
oxygen to clean CPAP machines rather than a harsh gas that is
generally only suitable for commercial sanitization under highly
controlled conditions. These misrepresentations are made more
egregious because the SoClean devices are designed and marketed for
use on the consumer's bedside table and because CPAP users suffer
from many symptoms that ozone exposure exacerbates - making the
falsehoods especially reprehensible and dangerous, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is the owner of a SoClean CPAP cleaning device and
has used that device on a regular basis since its purchase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson Oliver, Esq.
OLIVER LAW GROUP P.C.
1647 W. Big Beaver Rd.
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 327-6556
E-mail: notifications@oliverlawgroup.com
STANDARD LITHIUM: Standard Lithium Reminds of March 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on March 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between May 19, 2020 and November 17, 2021.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Standard Lithium,
contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There
is no cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/standard-lithium-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=24583&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Standard Lithium
includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LiSTR
Direct Lithium Extraction 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.
DEADLINE: March 28, 2022
Aggrieved Standard Lithium investors only have until March 28, 2022
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are
not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
SUTTER HEALTH: Averts Class Action Over Anticompetitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin Research Group reported that the federal trial in which
plaintiffs accused Northern California's Sutter Health of engaging
in anticompetitive practices ended on March 11 when, after less
than 10 hours of deliberating, the jury returned a verdict favoring
the health system.
The trial began a month ago, although the lawsuit, Sidibe v. Sutter
Health, was originally filed in 2012.
Plaintiffs in the case claimed that Sacramento-based Sutter Health,
a nonprofit health system with 24 hospitals, 36 surgery centers,
and more than 200 clinics, took advantage of its dominant presence
in certain markets to engage in "all-or-nothing" contracting
practices with insurers, meaning if payers wanted to include any
Sutter Health facilities in their network, they had to include all
of them.
As a result, the lawsuit claimed, health plan members were
discouraged from using other, less-expensive providers in markets
where Sutter Health has multiple competitors, and health plans paid
more for the health care services Sutter Health provided. The
health plans -- Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of
California, Health Net, and United Healthcare -- in turn raised
members' premiums to cover the increased costs.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class-action case presented
their arguments on behalf of more than 3 million individuals and
employers who purchased policies from the insurers since 2011. They
claimed the insurance premium overcharges between 2011 and 2017
totaled $411 million and sought three times that amount, or
approximately $1.2 billion, in damages.
Attorneys for Sutter Health argued that the health system's
arrangements with the insurers were based on a "volume discount"
and that Sutter Health did not engage in anticompetitive practices.
They pointed out that Sutter Health competes with another large
health system -- Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente -- in
several Northern California markets and said Sutter Health's
agreements with the insurers were meant to lower the total cost of
care.
(Several economists poked holes in the argument about Kaiser
Permanente saving as a competitor, since Kaiser Permanente is a
closed system that does not contract with plans like Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of California, Maria Dinzeo wrote in an
article published by Courthouse News Service.)
"After hearing many hours of testimony from witnesses, insurance
plan representatives, provider organizations, and experts, the jury
found that Sutter Health did not engage in anticompetitive conduct
and did not cause consumers to pay higher prices or premiums as
plaintiffs alleged," James Conforti, Sutter Health's interim
president and CEO, said in a statement posted on the health
system's website.
Conforti added that the jury's decision "validates that health care
providers, including doctors and hospitals, have a right to
evaluate whether to participate in health plan networks and ensure
that they don't interfere with the ability to provide coordinated
patient care."
Our Take: In 2018, when California's attorney general filed an
antitrust suit against Sutter Health, we said to keep an eye out
for how the case played out because it could affect how regulators
view hospital and health system mergers (i.e., greater market
consolidation can encourage anticompetitive practices).
The AG's case was eventually combined with a lawsuit filed against
Sutter by a labor union in 2014, which gained class-action status
in 2017 when roughly 1,500 self-funded health plans joined as
plaintiffs.
In addition to alleging that Sutter exerted its power as a dominant
provider in numerous Northern California markets to stifle
competition, the plaintiffs also claimed that the health system
overcharged patients and health plans for services provided -- to
the tune of $756 million.
It looked as if Sutter was going to fight the lawsuit, right up to
the day that opening arguments were set to start in October 2019.
But then the health system agreed to settle.
In the settlement, which received final court approval last August,
Sutter agreed to pay the plaintiffs $575 million but admitted no
wrongdoing.
The settlement barred Sutter from engaging in all-or-nothing
contracting practices and limited what the health system can charge
patients for out-of-network services. It also stipulated that
Sutter must give health plans access to pricing and quality
information, which the plans can share with their members, and that
the health system's business operations are to be monitored for 10
years.
So why did Sutter settle the earlier case and not the one that just
went to trial? Maybe because the stakes were higher in the first
case -- Sutter could have ended up paying almost $3 billion if it
had gone to trial and lost, The Associated Press reported back
then.
Or maybe Sutter settled the first case because the industry was
paying such close attention, since it would have set a considerable
precedent. By settling, Sutter did what Atrium Health and CHI
Franciscan had already done in similar antitrust litigation. The
settlement was mentioned in a couple of news cycles, but overall
the impact was minimal.
Maybe Sutter thought its odds of prevailing were better in the more
recent case, which didn't have the weight of the state AG's office
behind it.
It doesn't really matter why, though. Sutter went to court this
time and won.
So, the precedent that some were hoping for — that the jury would
find in favor of "the class" and that such a verdict would
eventually restore more competition to markets across the country,
potentially resulting in lower prices and better access to services
— hasn't been set.
Instead, even though Sutter Health is barred from entering into
all-or-nothing contracts with payers because of the settlement in
the earlier case, the outcome of this case could signal to other
providers who enjoy market dominance that such negotiating
practices are acceptable. Or at least the consequences are.
What else you need to know
Moderna intends to begin clinical trials of vaccines for 15
pathogens by 2025. As part of the global public health strategy the
company announced, Moderna said it would expand its portfolio to 15
mRNA vaccine programs targeting pathogens identified by the World
Health Organization and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness
Innovations as the biggest public health risks, including HIV,
tuberculosis, and malaria. It is also launching mRNA Access, a
program that will offer researchers the use of Modern's mRNA
technology to investigate new vaccines for emerging or neglected
infectious diseases.
Optum and Cigna are among the investors who participated in a
recent $30 million round of funding for Flume Health, a digital
health plan administrator. The two insurers made the investments
through their venture arms, along with five other investors, Flume
noted in a blog post. Flume uses its operating platform to help
health care providers and other businesses launch new health plans
quickly and more easily. The platform replaces traditional
third-party administrators with "a single chassis" that allows new
plans to scale as they add new members, while leveraging data
integrations and a workflow engine, according to Flume. Firefly
Health, a virtual-first primary care startup, used Flume's platform
to launch its health plan for small and mid-size employers within
six months.
Humana is exploring new ways to use data collected via Fitbit
devices to assist members of its Medicare Advantage (MA) plans,
Fierce Healthcare reported. Humana's partnership with Fitbit goes
back nearly a decade. In late 2020, the Louisville, Ky.-based
insurer gave out more than 116,000 Fitbit devices to MA members.
Now, the company is looking into two potential areas for using the
data it is gathering through the wearables: encouraging members to
engage in healthy behaviors by rewarding them when they do, and
helping members who have complex chronic conditions to better
understand and predict their risk of serious adverse events.
Six large health systems have formed the Evolve Health Alliance, a
human resources collaboration that will share best practices to
"improve the diversity, well-being, and engagement of their
respective workforces," with the thought that it will also improve
patient care in their communities. Alliance members include
AdventHealth, Atrium Health, Henry Ford Health System,
Intermountain Healthcare, Northwell Health, and OhioHealth. The
concept of the alliance formed after Intermountain Healthcare and
Northwell Health assisted each other with staffing shortages during
the pandemic, according to a news release.
Anthem will change its name to Elevance Health, if shareholders
approve the company's plans to rebrand; a vote will be taken at a
meeting on May 18. The proposed name combines the words "elevate"
and "advance." The planned rebranding is the first step toward
optimizing the company's brand portfolio, Anthem stated in a press
release, noting that Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield health plans
would not undergo name changes.
Executive moves
Dr. Paul Rothman will retire as the CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine
and dean of the medical faculty for the Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine, effective July 1. Dr. Theodore DeWeese,
currently vice dean or clinical affairs and president of the Johns
Hopkins Clinical Practice Association, will serve as interim CEO
and dean, according to a news release.
Dr. Craig Thompson, president and CEO of Memorial Sloan Kettering
Cancer Center, will step down from those roles when the board of
trustees appoints a successor. Dr. Thompson, who has served in both
capacities since November 2010, will stay on as the head of his
laboratory, the center said in the statement announcing the
leadership change.
Reno, Nev.-based Renown Health announced on March 11 that Dr. Tony
Slonim is no longer president and CEO of the health system,
disclosing that he was let go "with cause" following an internal
investigation. In a statement published by 2News.com, the health
system said that Dr. Thomas Graf, who is Renown's chief clinical
and quality officer, will serve as interim CEO, and Sy Johnson, the
health system's chief operating officer, will serve as interim
president. [GN]
TASKUS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of TaskUs, Inc. (NASDAQ: TASK) between
June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
of the important April 25, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased TaskUs 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 TaskUs class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3647 or 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 April 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. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. 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) TaskUs was experiencing severe
financial strain and business challenges, particularly with its
most important customer Facebook; (2) the Content Security market
was smaller than defendants represented and defendants'
representations were based on outdated market data; (3) TaskUs
improperly recognized revenue from certain key contracts; (4)
defendants overstated the size of TaskUs' workforce as well as
employee retention rates, and understated attrition rates; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the TaskUs class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3647 or 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.
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]
TRADER JOE'S: Fails to Provide Timely Wages, Acevedo Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRADER JOE'S EAST, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02024 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2022) seeks
to address underpayment caused by Defendant's untimely wage
payments and other damages for Plaintiff and all similarly situated
persons who work or have worked for Defendant in non-exempt
hourly-paid positions pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid, manual
worker who worked as a crew member at Defendant's store located in
New York from December 2019 to February 28, 2022.
Trader Joe's East Inc. retails food products. The Company offers
bakery, beverages, cheese, frozen, grocery, snacks, and sweet
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Vagvala Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Srikalahasti M. Vagvala filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled BEN LAPIN and SRIKALAHASTI
M. VAGVALA, Plaintiffs v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION, PATRICIA
A. STITZEL, CASSANDRA HARRIS, MICHAEL POTESHMAN, E. V. (RICK)
GOINGS and LUCIANA RANGEL, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00357, in
the United States District Courtfor the Middle District of
Florida.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Tupperware securities between January 30, 2019, and February 24,
2020, inclusive, seeking claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
On February 24, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing
that the Company will file a Form 12b-25 Notification of Late
Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide a
15-calendar day extension within which to file its From 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. The February 24, 2020
press release also announced for the first time that the Company is
conducting "an investigation primarily into the accounting for
accounts payable and accrued liabilities at its Fuller Mexico
beauty business" and that "the Company is forecasting a need for
relief concerning its existing leverage ratio covenant in its $650
million Credit Agreement dated March, 29, 2019."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.61 per share, or
over 45%, to close at $3.11 per share on February 25, 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that the 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) Tupperware lacked effective internal controls; (2)
there were accounting irregularities relating to the Company's
Fuller Mexico business; (3) as a result of the above, Tupperware
would need to investigate those accounting irregularities and be
unable to timely file its 2019 annual report; (4) Tupperware would
need relief from its $650 million Credit Agreement; (5) Tupperware
provided overvalued earnings per share guidance; and (6) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated
February 28, 2022, granting Defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE TUPPERWARE BRANDS
CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 22-10658, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on March 1,
2022.[BN]
Lead Plaintiff-Appellant Srikalahasti M. Vagvala is represented
by:
Adam D. Warden, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
E-mail: awarden@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Gonen Haklay, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: goldberg@rosenlegal.com
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com
ULTIMATE KRONOS: Faces Data Security Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Whitney, writing for Cybersecurity Dive, reports that the
December ransomware attack against workforce management company
Ultimate Kronos Group hindered the ability of its customers to
process payrolls. The attack, which has far-reaching ramifications,
has stakeholders looking for who is to blame.
Tesla, PepsiCo, Whole Foods, and the New York Metropolitan Transit
Authority were among many organizations hit by the incident and
resulting outage.
Employees at Tesla and PepsiCo filed a class action lawsuit against
UKG seeking damages due to alleged negligence in data security
procedures and practices. The case was filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District Court of California.
New York MTA employees filed a separate suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the MTA,
alleging it failed to pay overtime wages due to the Kronos outage.
The response and recovery from the ransomware attack is UKG's
responsibility, but failure to make payroll, a potential violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and any applicable state and local
laws, is the fault of the employer.
"The employers are responsible for making payroll," said John
Bambenek, principal threat hunter at security firm Netenrich. "If
they're using a third-party provider, and it doesn't get the job
done, they're responsible for making payroll."
That doesn't leave Kronos off the hook, however. Kronos offers a
service and couldn't provide it, so now the company may be liable
to its customers, Bambenek said. Employers can sue UKG too.
Assigning accountability
Another key question is whether the contracts that Kronos
negotiated with its customers define who might be responsible in
the wake of an incident like this.
In many cases, commercial contracts between a provider and a
customer contain an indemnification clause, which protects the
provider from legal action or damage for certain events. Here, the
contracts may be written in favor of Kronos.
"Every vendor, especially at the level of Kronos," is going to seek
an indemnification clause that benefits them in their contracts,
Matthew Warner, CTO and co-founder at detection and response
provider Blumira, told Cybersecurity Dive. "They're going to do as
much as they can to make sure that if something goes wrong, and if
there is any sort of interruption associated with it, they're
indemnified for it."
Cybersecurity Dive contacted UKG, Tesla, PepsiCo and the MTA asking
for comment on the attack and the lawsuits. The MTA said that it
doesn't comment on pending litigation. A spokesperson for Kronos's
public relations firm pointed to the latest update about the
incident and the company's recovery efforts, but avoided comment on
the lawsuits.
Public data
Licensing agreements between the vendor and its customers
complicate potential liability.
Looking at some of the contracts that Kronos had with cities and
other public entities, Warner found that they require "gross
negligence or willful misconduct" to hold the company liable, he
said.
Otherwise, Kronos may be indemnified for its outage.
"Legal responsibility for hacks is still such a murky thing in the
U.S.," said Warner. "Often what we see for ransomware is the multi
class-action lawsuit. And often they will just settle before it
goes much further into law. There may be some success by people
suing Kronos, but I'm expecting it to be small settlements."
For now, no one knows how or why the attack occurred. Kronos could
have taken all the necessary steps to protect its data and systems
but still been successfully breached. The company told
Cybersecurity Dive that it has internal security resources and had
monitoring in place prior to the incident but has since been
supplementing those resources with third-party support and tools.
Kronos took around six weeks to restore access to the core time,
scheduling and HR/payroll services for affected Kronos Private
Cloud customers. As of March 4, the company was still in the
process of restoring additional applications used by some KPC
customers, including Citrix and Workforce Analytics. This means
that a full recovery has taken longer than the several days or
weeks that Kronos initially estimated. That may point to a problem
somewhere in the mix.
"Kronos didn't have a good business continuity plan," Bambenek
said. "Kronos does one thing -- it's a payroll processor. Can you
process payroll when this happens? If the answer is no, you did
something wrong, or you didn't have something in place."
Warner said he wouldn't be surprised if the employee lawsuits
against employers are successful.
"This sounds worse than I intend it to, but it's not Kronos's
responsibility to make sure payroll works for Organization A,"
Warner said. "It's Organization A's responsibility to make sure
they can do payroll in the case of there being an outage with your
upstream provider."
For now, legal culpability is a matter that will remain murky until
the pre-trial phases kick off for the different lawsuits.
"You're probably not going to know who's truly responsible from a
legal perspective until discovery," Bambenek said. "And some people
are just going to throw money at the problem to make it go away."
[GN]
UNITED AIRLINES: Yustman Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Victor Yustman, Victoria Fellows, Maria
Deglauve, Ron Ozaki, Bernhard J. Ornellas, Ernest Hewson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Airlines, Inc., United Airlines Frontline Voluntary
Separation Leave Program, United Airlines Consolidated Welfare
Benefit Plan, United Airlines Retiree Medical Program, Case No.
2:21-cv-09432, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 11, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01311 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for
E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits.
United Airlines, Inc. -- https://www.united.com/ -- is a major U.S.
airline headquartered at Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois and
operates a large domestic and international route network spanning
cities large and small across the United States and all six
inhabited continents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
Susan L. Meter, Esq.
KANTOR AND KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Phone: (818) 886-2525
Email: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net
smeter@kantorlaw.net
- and -
Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Email: slempert@cohenmilstein.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian David Boyle, Esq.
Michael Tristan Morales, Esq.
OMELVENY AND MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 383-5327
Email: bboyle@omm.com
tmorales@omm.com
- and -
Jason Matthew Zarrow, Esq.
O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 430-8367
Email: jzarrow@omm.com
- and -
Larry S. Kaplan, Esq.
Marnie Allison Holz, Esq.
200 W. Madison St., 16th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 345-3000
Email: lkaplan@kmazuckert.com
mholz@kmazuckert.com
UNITED STATES: Diaz Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), et al. The case
is styled as Lydia Gonzalez Diaz, Vanessa Walsh, Nina Crawford,
Samantha Coleman, Milton Cruz, Maryanne Hayes, William Hearn,
Francisco Hernandez, Gail Jones, Marc Polite, Ralph Waiters,
Latrina Williams, Linda Bolton, Sharon Hoskins, Jovan Johnson,
Reina Vasquez, Sonya Tavaras, Steven Tavarez, on behalf of a class
of similarly situated tenants of the New York City Housing
Authority at Harlem River Houses v. United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD); New York City Housing
Authority; Harlem River Preservation LLC; C+C Apartment Management,
LLC; Case No. 1:22-cv-00317-UNA (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision for the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) --
https://www.hud.gov/ -- provides housing support and uplifts
communities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur Z Schwartz, Esq.
ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
225 Broadway, Suite 1902
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 285-1400
Fax: (212) 285-1410
Email: aschwartz@advocatesny.com
VANGUARD GROUP: Investors Sue Over Alleged Massive Tax Bills
------------------------------------------------------------
PJ D'Annunzio, writing for Law360, reports that Vanguard was sued
on March 14 by a proposed class of investors who claim that the
company grossly violated its fiduciary duties by triggering a huge
sell-off of assets in target retirement funds in its attempt to
lower fees, leaving some investors with massive tax burdens. [GN]
W SERVICES GROUP: Garcia Sues Over Cleaners' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
LORENA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W SERVICES GROUP LLC, CLEANING PATH CORP,
and CINIA ORTEGA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01959
(S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to
pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, failure to provide
timely wages, and failure to provide wage notice and accurate wage
statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a cleaner at various
locations throughout New York City from approximately March 2020 to
December 2021.
W Services Group LLC is a national facilities service provider that
manages numerous projects for multisite groups across North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
Katherine Bonilla, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
[*] Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss Consumer Arbitration Studies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark J. Levin, Esq., and Alan S. Kaplinsky, Esq., of Ballard Spahr
LLP, disclosed that a recent blog by Professor Jeff Sovern,
occasioned by the recent Senate hearing on consumer arbitration
clauses, recycles two of his favorite talking points: (1) consumers
don't understand arbitration clauses, and (2) consumers only
benefit from post-dispute, not pre-dispute, arbitration. We've
heard it all before, and our previous responses to his earlier
iterations of those same arguments have stood the test of time.
Professor Sovern alludes to his 2014 study which concluded that
consumers should not be bound by predispute arbitration clauses
because they do not understand what they are agreeing to. However,
as we demonstrated at the time, the study was riddled with serious
flaws, including the fact that it did not include interviews with
consumers who had actually participated in arbitration, it held
arbitration clauses to higher standards than other contract terms,
and it did not inquire into consumer understanding of class action
litigation as compared to individual arbitration. We argued that
these omissions were material because surveys by Ernst & Young and
Harris Interactive had concluded that most consumers who actually
participated in arbitration were satisfied with the process and an
empirical study of consumer arbitration by the Northwestern
University School of Law showed that arbitration was a faster,
simpler, and cheaper way of resolving consumer disputes than going
to court.
Subsequent studies of consumer arbitration -- including the CFPB's
728-page empirical Study issued in 2015 and more recent studies by
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- have confirmed that individual
arbitration is far more beneficial for consumers than class action
litigation. For example, the CFPB Study found that consumers who
prevailed in an individual arbitration recovered an average of
$5,389, and the entire arbitration process was concluded in an
average of 2-7 months. By contrast, consumers who received cash
payments in class action settlements got a paltry $32.35 on average
after waiting for up to two years, while their lawyers recovered a
staggering $424,495,451. In addition, most consumer arbitration
clauses contain clear disclosures about what arbitration is and how
it differs from court proceedings and give consumers the right to
reject the arbitration clause without affecting any other terms of
the contract.
We have also written extensively on the fallacies in Professor
Sovern's "opt-in" arguments. Among other things, once a dispute has
arisen, one side or the other, or both, inevitably use the in
terrorem "threat" of expensive and prolonged litigation as a
negotiating tool. That tactic is eliminated if the parties have
agreed to arbitrate the dispute prior to the dispute arising.
In sum, the testimony presented by Senator Toomey and Professor
Zywicki at the Senate hearing was well founded and underscores the
reality that consumers do have free choice in deciding whether to
agree to arbitration. [GN]
[*] Class Action Remains Underutilized by Consumers in Kerala
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hindu reports that Class Action Lawsuit remains underutilised
by aggrieved consumers in the State despite being in vogue since
the amended Consumer Protection Act in 2019.
The provision enables a member to represent a similarly aggrieved
group and is very popular in the developed world with highly
conscious consumers and powerful consumer organisations. However,
the consumers here are largely unaware of it and lawyers are hardly
keen to popularise it since it could affect the number of their
clients.
The World Consumer Rights Day to be observed on March 8 has drawn
attention to the consumer disputes redressal commissions in the
country. Since the inception of the consumer protection law, 54.85
lakh complaints have been filed, out of which 49.30 lakh have been
disposed of and 5.54 lakh complaints are pending across national,
state, and district commissions.
"Kerala enjoys a better disposal rate of 91.24% compared to the
national average of 89.88%. Since the inception of the law, 32,887
cases have been filed in the State, out of which 30,007 have been
disposed of and 2,880 remain pending as of June 20, 2021," said
D.B. Binu, President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ernakulam.
Thrissur district continues to hold the unenviable record of having
the most number of consumers being taken for a ride, thanks to the
busting chit fund business there, followed by Ernakulam where
complaints related to the purchase and service of digital devices
dominate. Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode are next in line.
Absence of online filing of complaints remains a major impediment
to the redressal mechanism in the State though moves are afoot to
introduce the system. "It is an irony that the online system is
missing in a State like Kerala where it is most likely to be used
by consumers. Also, vacancies in commissions remain ignored while
commissions themselves are reduced to marginal players by tagging
them along with the Civil Supplies department. Our consumers are
also less conscious about their rights," said Dejo Kapen, managing
trustee of the Centre for Consumer Education.
Complaints emailed are admitted and interim reliefs are also
granted but subjected to the condition that complaints should be
subjected in hard copy within a specific period. Shortage of
manpower and physical infrastructure also ails the functioning of
the system. [GN]
[*] Madison County to Rejoin Class Action Against Opioid Companies
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken de la Bastide, writing for The Herald Bulletin, reports that
Madison County has joined several other local government entities
in opting back into an opioid settlement.
The Madison County Board of Commissioners voted on March 14 to
rejoin the class action lawsuit that was filed by the state in 2017
against opioid manufacturers.
The municipalities and the counties joined several others
throughout the state last June in opting out of a likely $26
million settlement with the state because they believed they could
receive more money and because the agreement would have prevented
future lawsuits against other manufacturers and distributors.
The Indianapolis law firm of Cohen & Malad, hired by the county,
recommended that Madison County opt to rejoin the settlement.
County Attorney Jeff Graham said Madison County can expect to
receive $2,836,394 in the settlement with AmerisourceBergen Corp.,
Cardinal Health and McKesson Corp.
He said the county is expected to receive $665,132 from defendant
Johnson & Johnson.
The agreement also includes a reduction from 30% to 15% of the
final settlement that will be paid to the Cohen & Malad.
The law firm will receive about $304,630 of the county's estimated
total settlement, or 8.7%.
That would leave the county's total net around $3,196,897.
Graham said the law firm can then petition the state for up to 6.3%
of the state's part of the settlement, which would total the new
15% fee for Cohen & Malad.
"I don't know how the funds can be used," he said. "Since it deals
with the opioid epidemic, a large portion will go toward public
health."
Graham said the county will have to establish a separate fund and
is awaiting the guidelines on how those funds can be spent.
He said the county should receive its portion of the settlement by
the end of the year.
Alexandria, Elwood and Pendleton have all rejoined the class action
lawsuit.
Alexandria's share is expected to be about $218,482 from
distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson, plus
$51,284 from Johnson & Johnson.
Elwood could expect about $434,484 from the distributors and about
$101,886 from J&J.
Pendleton's anticipated share of the settlement would amount to
about $153,445 from the three distributors and about $35,983 from
Johnson & Johnson.
In other business, the commissioners adopted an ordinance
establishing parking fines for the spaces along Ninth Street on the
south side of the Madison County Government Center.
Parking is limited to one hour, and the Sheriff's Department will
enforce the time limit.
The fine is $10 for the first offense, $25 for a second offense and
$50 for a third offense.
The collected fines will be placed in the county's general fund.
[GN]
[*] Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Forced Arbitration Clause
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACA International on March 14 disclosed that serving as a vehicle
for Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown's reintroduced
Arbitration Fairness for Consumers Act (S.B. 3755) --cosponsored by
21 Democrat senators -- the committee held a hearing March 8 to
revisit proposed prohibitions on forced arbitration clause.
The hearing, "Examining Mandatory Arbitration in Financial Service
Products," included witnesses Paul Bland, executive director,
Public Justice; Remington A. Gregg, counsel for Civil Justice and
Consumer Rights, Public Citizen; Todd J. Zywicki, professor of law
at George Mason University Foundation, George Mason University
Antonin Scalia School of Law; Steven Lehotsky, Lehotsky Keller LLP,
on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Myriam Gilles, Paul
R. Verkuil research chair and professor of law.
In his testimony, Zywicki said that after 25 years in consumer
finance, including as a former Federal Trade Commission and
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulator, "consumers are not
idiots," and given the competitive consumer finance market,
two-thirds of customer complaints result in full refunds. The CFPB
found that fewer than 1% of consumers would seek to consult an
attorney to address a financial product harm, he said.
"Arbitration is not the Wild West, as substantial judicial case law
exists to ensure a fair and effective process, with minimum
recovery amounts for consumers," Zywicki said. "By contrast, class
actions provide little to no consumer relief, despite drawn out
litigation."
Brown, D-Ohio, reintroduced the Arbitration Fairness for Consumers
Act to amend Title X of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 to prohibit predispute arbitration agreements and class-action
waivers in contracts for consumer financial products or services,
according to a news release from his office.
"ACA supports the use of arbitration as an alternative to
addressing and resolving consumer complaints through formal legal
proceedings," said CEO Scott Purcell in a letter to Brown and the
committee's Ranking Member Pat Toomey, R-Pa. "Alternative dispute
resolution through arbitration benefits consumers by reducing the
time to achieve a resolution of claims brought by or against
consumers, decreasing the expenses of all parties to the arbitral
proceeding as compared to litigation, and limiting the legal and
administrative fees of formal litigation."
There is also evidence that consumers can pay less in the
arbitration process compared to litigation, according to research
by Zywicki and Jason Scott Johnston, "The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's Arbitration Study: A Summary and Critique,"
which he referenced in his hearing testimony.
"The findings of that study led the CFPB to issue a rulemaking that
barred consumers and providers of financial services from entering
into contractual agreements to arbitrate any disputes that later
arose pursuant to the contract," Zwyicki said in his testimony. "In
turn, that rule was later rescinded by Congress acting under the
authority of the Congressional Review Act."
He added that "consumer financial services markets are largely
competitive and regulation such as the Truth in Lending Act
operates to try to make the terms of consumer financial services
products transparent and understandable to consumers." The CFPB
should update the arbitration study "to better understand the
impact of contractual provisions requiring arbitration of any
disputes," Zywicki said.
Supporters of banning forced arbitration clauses discussed during
the hearing said they present risks for consumers.
"Forced arbitration clauses abolish fundamental consumer rights,"
Gregg said in his testimony. "Unpublished arbitration decisions are
subject to limited judicial review, denying appellate processes
available in the court system."
However, Steven Lehotsky, partner at Lehotsky Keller LLP, speaking
on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said empirical studies
find consumers prevail as much or more often with arbitration than
litigation, with plaintiffs succeeding on the merits 44% of the
time in arbitration (versus 34% in litigation), with average case
duration 299 days for arbitration, compared with 429 days for
litigation.
"Elimination of bilateral pre-dispute arbitration clauses would
ultimately be detrimental for consumers and the public," Lehotsky
said, adding that the chamber supports arbitration as a fair, less
complicated, and lower-cost alternative to seeking dispute
resolution in the overburdened court system.
S.B. 3755 is currently referred to the Senate Banking Committee for
consideration.
Purcell notes in the letter to Brown that debt collection companies
do not enter into arbitration agreements directly with consumers;
rather, they can implicitly or explicitly flow through to a debt
collector from an underlying creditor contract. Nevertheless,
arbitration plays a crucial role in the resolution of debt
collection disputes.
"The CFPB even recognized during its Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act panel process for arbitration rules, which
were later overturned by Congress, that small businesses are
impacted when the arbitration process is eliminated," Purcell said.
"In instances when arbitration agreements contain class-action
waivers, they play an important role by offering legitimate debt
collectors, especially small businesses, a way to defeat
inappropriate class-action lawsuits quickly and easily."
FAIR Act - House Bill on Arbitration
Meanwhile, the House Rules Committee will hold a hearing on the
Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act at 2 p.m. EDT March
15.
This bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Henry Johnson, D-Ga., prohibits
a predispute arbitration agreement from being valid or enforceable
if it requires arbitration of an employment, consumer, antitrust,
or civil rights dispute.
If you have executive leadership updates or other member news to
share with ACA, contact our communications department at
comm@acainternational.org. View our publications page for more
information and our news submission guidelines here. [GN]
[*] U.S. Chamber of Commerce Strongly Opposes H.R. 963
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a letter that it strongly
opposes H.R. 963, the "Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act."
The Chamber will include votes on this legislation in our "How They
Voted" scorecard.
The FAIR Act would effectively eliminate the use and availability
of pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a means to fairly resolve
antitrust, employment, civil rights, and consumer disputes. The
ultimate goal of this bill is to promote expensive class action
litigation that does little to help businesses, consumers, and
employees. Such litigation serves principally to benefit the
attorneys who file class action lawsuits.
Arbitration is a fair, effective, and less expensive means of
resolving disputes compared to going to court. Multiple empirical
studies demonstrate that claimants in arbitration do just as well,
or in many circumstances, considerably better, than in court. For
example, recent studies have found that employees and consumers
prevailed more often, recovered more money, and resolved their
claims more quickly in arbitration than in litigation.[1] Studies
have also shown that class action settlements frequently provide
only a pittance -- or many times, nothing at all -- to class
members while millions of dollars are paid to their attorneys.
Unions recognize the benefits of arbitration, which is why they
have fought to ensure that they are excluded from the effects of
the FAIR Act. The FAIR Act expressly allows labor unions to
continue to benefit from pre-dispute arbitration agreements both in
disputes with other unions and in disputes with companies.
Since 1925, the Federal Arbitration Act has protected the
enforceability of agreements to resolve disputes through
arbitration, including agreements made before any disputes arise.
The FAIR Act would radically alter these longstanding principles.
It threatens the validity and enforceability of millions of
contracts while imposing new, intolerable burdens on our already
overcrowded courts.
Proponents of this bill attempt to justify those consequences by
distorting or ignoring the fairness and due process protections
built into the design of consumer and employment arbitration
systems. The American Arbitration Association (AAA), the country's
largest arbitration provider, imposes detailed fairness protocols
for employment and consumer arbitrations. It will not accept a case
unless the arbitration agreement complies with those standards.
These requirements mandate that arbitrators must be neutral and
disclose any conflict of interest, give both parties an equal say
in selecting the arbitrator, limit the fees employees and consumers
must pay to $300 and $200 respectively, empower the arbitrator to
order any necessary discovery, and require that damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees be awardable to the claimant to the
same extent as in court. The AAA rules also require that consumers
be given the option of resolving their dispute in small claims
court. JAMS, another leading arbitration provider, requires similar
protections.
The courts provide another layer of oversight. If an arbitration
agreement is unfair, courts can and do step in to declare those
arbitration agreements unconscionable and unenforceable.
Arbitration clauses that provide for biased arbitrators, impose
unfair procedures, limit awards of damages or attorneys' fees, or
require arbitration in out-of-the-way places are routinely held
unenforceable.
Courts also invalidate arbitration agreements that purport to
impose a "gag order." Many courts have ruled that arbitration
agreements cannot prevent consumers or employees from publicly
discussing claims or filing complaints with government agencies,
nor can arbitrators' decisions be kept secret. Furthermore, state
laws require arbitral forums such as the AAA to disclose
arbitration outcomes in all consumer and employee arbitrations.
Courts consistently hold that either party may disclose the results
of arbitration proceedings.
The opponents of pre-dispute arbitration agreements also ignore the
critical reality that, if enacted, the FAIR Act would eliminate the
only realistic opportunity for consumers and employees to obtain a
remedy for the vast majority of grievances that they have. While
getting rid of arbitration will enable class action lawyers to
bring more cases, most consumer and employee disputes are not
eligible to be resolved through a class action. In addition, they
involve amounts too low to attract an attorney to take an
individual case. Arbitration empowers consumers and employees by
giving them the only realistic avenue for obtaining relief for such
claims. The only real beneficiaries of this bill would be the
plaintiffs' lawyers who would be able to bring more lawsuits to
enrich themselves while providing little or no benefit to class
members.
The Chamber urges you to reject H.R. 963. [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 ***