/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220401.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 1, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 60
Headlines
2428392 INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
3M COMPANY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hardwick Suit
A.M. LEONARD: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN: Guyton Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
ACAI INDUSTRIES: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ACTELION PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Putative Classs Suit
ALLIANT CREDIT: Camacho Files Suit in N.D. California
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Revival Chiropractic Suit
ALMA REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Decevic Suit Alleges
ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement Reached in Klein Class Suit
AMAZON INC: Smalls Appeals Dismissal of Labor Class Action
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Williams Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Insurance Dispute Ongoing in CA Court
AON PLC: Wins ERISA Suit in North Carolina
APPLIED INDUSTRIAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Antitrust Suit Ongoing
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in NE
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Donofrio Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
AVIS BUDGET: Mendez Toll Fee Suit Ongoing in NJ Court
BATTERYCLERK LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BET INFORMATION: Moulton Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
BULLY TOOLS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
C2 FINANCIAL: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
CANADA INC: More Time for Class Certification Bid Filing Sought
CAULIPOWER LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CMG CIT: Briefing Schedule on Erguera Class Status Bid Extended
COLAMCO INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Appeals Court Ruling in Employees' ERISA Suit
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Markson Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Order
DIGITAL BASEMENT: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRIP HYDRATION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DROPBOX INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Batis Files Suit in N.D. California
EGYPTAIR AIRLINES: Elmedani Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ELLUSIONIST.COM INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EMU AUSTRALIA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ENERGY TRANSFER: State Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
ENVIGO RMS: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
ETERNAL SUNSHINE: Cardenas Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
EVENTBRITE INC: Agrees to Settle IPO-Related Shareholder Suit
EVENTBRITE INC: Settlement Deal in Securities Class Action Junked
EVENTBRITE INC: Snow Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES: Robertson Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
FASHION NOVA: Blum Files Suit in C.D. California
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Reset to Nov. 16
FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Faces Insurance Suit in Pennsylvania
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Files Bid for Class Certification
FOREST LABS: "Namenda" Consolidated Antitrust Suits Pending
FOREST LABS: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit over "Bystolic"
FRUIT GUYS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MILLS: Schweinsburg Suit Removed to S.D. California
GENUINE DATA: Jackson Files FCRA Suit in D. South Carolina
GODADDY INC: Settlement Reached in Bennett Class Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Stipulation on Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Filed
GR8 GRANOLA: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRANDIZIO WILKINS: Stamat Files Suit in D. Maryland
GREEN PARK SNACKS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAWAI'I: Seeks to Strike Opulento Class Certification Bid
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Settles Putative Class Suit for $16.8MM
HEAT FACTORY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ICON CLINICAL: Ct. Conditionally Certifies Nesbeth Class Action
INSPIRED BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JADE INDUSTRIES: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits Related to Pelvic Melsh Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ct. Narrows Claims in California Antitrust Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit in Canadian Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces ERISA Suit in New Jersey Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Ongoing on Price-Fixing Suit
JUUL LABS: Deforest Area Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Whittemore-Prescott Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Causes Youth Health Crisis, Monticello Says
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Ascent Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Logan City Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Morristown Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, West Seneca Claims
JUUL LABS: Saline Area Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Michigan
JUUL LABS: Tonawanda City Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Rockwell Suit Says
KERATIN HOLDINGS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KETTLE FOODS: Pressnell Files Suit in D. Oregon
KING KULLEN GROCERY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KOOLATRON USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Securities Suit in Illinois Court
KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne ERISA Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
LIL BUCKS LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LINCOLN LIFE: Nitkewicz Insurance Suit Junked
LINCOLN LIFE: Settlement in Hanks Suit Gets Initial Nod
LINCOLN LIFE: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Junks Glover Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS Insurance Suit Ongoing in Pennsylvania
LITTLE BEET TABLE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LUPTON EXCAVATION: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LYRICAL FOODS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARLETTE FUNDING: Faces Usury-Related Suit in Pennsylvania
MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK: Horn Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
MDG USA INC: Danzy Suit Removed to N.D. California
MDL 2382: Hale Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
MERRILL & LYNCH: Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
METLIFE INC: Parchmann Shareholder Suit Dismissed
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Suit Over Late Fees Pending in Texas Court
MISFITS MARKET: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONQ LLC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MURPHY'S MAGIC SUPPLIES: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAKED GALLERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Buehler Suit Alleges
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Chen Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YMCA: Jackson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
OCWEN LOAN: Settlement in Franklin Suit Wins Initial Approval
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Faces Setzer Suit in New York Court
PBF ENERGY: Faces Goldstein Suit Over Refinery Mishap
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settlement Reached in Putative Class Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Dispute with Direct Purchasers Class
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Row with End-User/Indirect Purchaser Class
POLARIS PRECISION: Jordan FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Texas
PORTLAND GENERAL: Cannataro Action Pending in Oregon Court
PORTLAND GENERAL: Employees' Fund Suit Pending in Oregon Court
PORTLAND GENERAL: Hessel Class Suit Pending in Oregon
PPL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Suit Over Clean Air Act Violation
PPL ELECTRIC: Talen Montana Action Ongoing
REDFIN CORP: Bell Labor Suit for Arbitration
REDFIN CORP: Faces Labor Class Suit in California
RYDER SYSTEM: Faces Securities Suit in S.D. Fla.
SAM'S WEST: Class Certification Filing Continued to April 11
SCWORX CORP: Settlement in Yannes Suit for Initial Approval
SENSIENT NATURAL: Bryan Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit
SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Agar Class Action
SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in California
SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Walters Class Suit in California
SLIMFAST FOODS: Faces Brand Suit Over Mislabeled Snack Products
TEXTRON INC: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
TRUSTMARK CORP: Suit Over Illegal Fees Remanded to S.D. Tex.
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits in D.C. Court
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Deadline on Class Cert Bid Response
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Faine Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Crumrine Shareholder Suit in New York Court
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Dekker Class Action
VVF INTERVEST: Robertson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
WALMART INC: Pretrial, Trial Deadlines Continued in Carr Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
XCENTRIC VENTURES: Selker Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
XEROX CORPORATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 8
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,097 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has US$14.3MM Asbestos Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Still Defends 151 PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 45 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Reports $10.8MM Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Faces 3,300 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hamilton Beach Defends Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,800 PI Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Faces Numerous Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 104 Exposure Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Still Faces PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 106 Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Defends A&E Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc.'s Subsidiary Defends Numerous PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumed Personal Injury Suits
*********
2428392 INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2428392, Inc. The
case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. 2428392, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01668
(E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
2428392, Inc. (doing business as FYE, the initials for For Your
Entertainment) -- https://www.fye.com/ -- is an American chain of
entertainment retail stores headquartered in Albany.[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
3M COMPANY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hardwick Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit KEVIN D. HARDWICK, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1185, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
Plaintiff Hardwick filed the action against 3M, Daikin, Daikin
America, Inc., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., the Chemours Co.,
Archroma Management L.L.C., Arkema, Inc., Arkema France, S.A.,
Solvay Specialty Polymers, USA, LLC, and AGC Chemicals Americas,
Inc.
The case focuses on "PFAS," which are man-made chemicals described
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as follows:
"Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made
chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS and GenX chemicals. Since the
1940s, PFAS have been manufactured and used in a variety of
industries around the globe, including in the United States. PFOA
and PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of
these chemicals. Both are very persistent in the environment and in
the human body. Exposure to certain PFAS can lead to adverse human
health effects."
Mr. Hardwick alleges that he and others in Ohio and the nation have
potentially dangerous amounts of PFAS in their blood. He brings
claims for negligence, battery, conspiracy, and seeks declaratory
judgment. Mr. Hardwick asks for equitable relief in the form of a
panel of scientists to study the effects that the PFAS has in his
body and for medical monitoring as part of that relief.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asked the Court for an order:
1. certifying a nationwide class of:
"any individual residing within the United States at the
time of class certification for one year or more since
1977 with 0.05 parts per trillion (ppt) or more of PFOA
and at least 0.05 ppt or more of any other PFAS in their
blood serum"; and
2. appointing his counsel as class counsel.
On March 7, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff's motion, certifying the following class:
individuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05 parts per
trillion (ppt) of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other
PFAS in their blood serum.
The Defendants now file this petition for permission to appeal
under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to review the
aforementioned Court Order.
The appellate case is captioned as KEVIN D. HARDWICK,
Plaintiff-Respondent v. 3M COMPANY; DYNEON, LLC; E. I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT LLC;
ARKEMA, INC.; ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.;
DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; SOLVAY SPECIALTY
POLYMERS, USA, LLC, Defendants-Petitioners, Case No. 22-305, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on
March 22, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners 3M COMPANY; DYNEON, LLC; E. I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT LLC;
ARKEMA, INC.; ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.;
DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; and SOLVAY SPECIALTY
POLYMERS, USA, LLC, are represented by:
Drew H. Campbell, Esq.
BRICKER & ECKLER LLP
100 South Third Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 227-2300
Facsimile: (614) 227-2390
E-mail: dcampbell@bricker.com
- and -
Jaren Janghorbani, Esq.
Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esq.
Daniel Toal, Esq.
Crystal Lohmann Parker, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
E-mail: jjanghorbani@paulweiss.com
twells@paulweiss.com
dtoal@paulweiss.com
cparker@paulweiss.com
- and -
Theodore M. Grossman, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3939
Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
E-mail: tgrossman@jonesday.com
- and -
Louis A. Chaiten, Esq.
James R. Saywell, Esq.
JONES DAY
North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue East
Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
Telephone: (216) 586-3939
Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
E-mail: lachaiten@jonesday.com
jsaywell@jonesday.com
- and -
Ronald S. Kopp, Esq.
Jessica A. Lopez, Esq.
ROETZEL & ANDRESS
222 South Main Street, Suite 400
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone: (330) 849-6644
Facsimile: (330) 376-4577
E-mail: rkopp@ralaw.com
- and -
Melanie Black Dubis, Esq.
Charles Raynal, Esq.
PARKER POE
PNC Plaza, 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 890-4158
Facsimile: (919) 834-4564
E-mail: melaniedubis@parkerpoe.com
- and -
James A. King, Esq.
PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
Columbus, OH 43215-6194
Telephone: (614) 227-2000
E-mail: jking@porterwright.com
- and -
Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60613
Telephone: (312) 853-7274
E-mail: dspira@sidley.com
- and -
Lisa M. Gilford, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 W. 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6044
E-mail: lgilford@sidley.com
- and -
Heidi Levine, Esq.
Alan E. Rothman, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 7th Avenue
Telephone: (212) 839-5300
E-mail: hlevine@sidley.com
arothman@sidley.com
A.M. LEONARD: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.M. Leonard, Inc.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. A.M. Leonard, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02467 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A.M. Leonard -- https://www.amleo.com/ -- is a leader in the tool
and supply business with emphasis on doing business the old
fashioned way.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN: Guyton Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deloise Guyton, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. Abrahamsen Gindin,
LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00629-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
files unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
Ms. Guyton and her counsel strongly believe that the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of Class
members.
The settlement provides monetary compensation for each
participating Class member, and full reimbursement of all monies
Class members paid to Defendant.
The Settlement Agreement defines a settlement class comprised of:
"All persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) from whom
Abrahamsen Gindin, LLC attempted to collect a consumer debt,
(c) between June 24, 2020 and November 30, 2021."
The Defendant has identified 1,690 potential members of the Class,
including Ms. Guyton.
The case centers on the failure of Abrahamsen Gindin to register as
a consumer collection agency with the Office of Financial
Regulation of the Florida Financial Services Commission prior to
attempting to collect debts from consumers in Florida.
The Plaintiff Guyton alleged that Defendant's conduct violated
sections 1692e and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).
The parties have reached an agreement to settle this case whereby
the Defendant will (1) issue full refunds to all Class members (as
defined below) who paid it any money, totaling $2,460; and (2)
create a non-reversionary settlement fund in the amount of $16,900
to cover payments to participating Class members.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iAqDKH
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
James L. Davidson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
ACAI INDUSTRIES: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acai Industries, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Acai Industries, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01657 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Acai Industries Inc. is a corporation located in Patchogue, New
York.[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
ACTELION PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Putative Classs Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2022, that the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint to which the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Discovery is ongoing.
In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed
against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals
U.S., Inc. and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (subsidiaries of
Johnson and Johnson) in United States District Court for the
District of Maryland and United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to
supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of
Tracleer. This is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
Strategy required by the Food and Drug Administration, which
imposes restrictions on distribution of the product.
In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia
case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2019, the
Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
In April 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit reversed and remanded. Discovery is ongoing.
Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and
sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey.
ALLIANT CREDIT: Camacho Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliant Credit Union.
The case is styled as Yuliana Camacho, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Alliant Credit Union, Case No.
5:22-cv-01690-SVK (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Alliant Credit Union -- https://www.alliantcreditunion.org/ -- is a
member-owned financial cooperative headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deylin Odysseus Thrift-Viveros, Esq.
Thomas Andrew Saenz, Esq.
MEXICAN-AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
634 S Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Phone: (213) 629-2512
Fax: (213) 629-0266
Email: dthrift-viveros@maldef.org
tsaenz@maldef.org
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Revival Chiropractic Suit
----------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that it is facing a class
action captioned "Revival Chiropractic v. Allstate Insurance
Company, et al." (January 2019, M.D. Fla.).
An appeal pending in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the
court denied class certification and plaintiff's request to file a
renewed motion for class certification.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the property and casualty
insurance business in the United States and Canada.
ALMA REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Decevic Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
FADILJ DECEVIC; and NEDZAD ORAHOVAC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALMA REALTY CORP.;
GARDEN SPIRES ASSOCIATES, LLC; 232-262 TAAFFE PL, LLC; 467-75 ST.
MARKS AVE ASSOC. LLC; NICHOLAS CONWAY; and, EFSTATHOS VALIOTIS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01622 (E.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as superintendents.
Alma Realty Corp. is headquartered in the United States. The
company's line of business includes renting, buying, selling and
appraising real estate. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone:(718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com
ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement Reached in Klein Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein v. Altria Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00075-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge
David J. Novak entered an order granting K.C. Crosthwaite's motion
to seal, Defendant Altria Group, Inc. and JUUL Labs, Inc's motion
for leave to file under seal, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
under seal and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal.
This matter comes before the Court for pretrial management. The
parties have settled this matter and Plaintiffs have filed a Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan
of Allocation of the Net Proceeds of the Settlement. The Court has
scheduled a final Settlement Fairness Hearing to occur on March 31,
2022. Because the parties have resolved this case, Plaintiffs
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel and
Defendants' Motion for Hearing on Class Certification are hereby
denied as moot.
The unredacted briefs and exhibits will remain under seal until
further order of the Court. The redacted versions of these
documents shall remain unsealed. Let the Clerk file a copy of this
Order electronically and notify all counsel of record, the Court
says.
Additionally, the parties have filed several motions to seal,
seeking to seal documents that contain confidential and proprietary
business information. Redacted documents have been filed on the
public document. No less drastic alternatives to sealing exist.
Altria Group is an American corporation and one of the world's
largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and related
products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
unincorporated Henrico County, Virginia, just outside the city of
Richmond.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qC85y1 at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON INC: Smalls Appeals Dismissal of Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christian Smalls filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled CHRISTIAN SMALLS, on his own behalf
and on behalf of class of similarly situated African American and
Latina/o workers, v. AMAZON, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05492, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that
the Defendant violated certain rights guaranteed to the Plaintiff
and the class he represents by virtue of state and local civil
rights laws and that these violations arose from the same nucleus
of operative facts as its violations of New York Human Rights Law.
On November 19, 2015, Smalls commenced working for Amazon in an
entry level position. In August 2016, he was promoted to a
management associate position. As such, he was responsible for
approximately 60 subordinates. On March 24, 2020, a worker, Barbara
Chandler, with whom Smalls had had close contact, tested positive
for COVID 19.
On March 30, 2020, Smalls organized a public demonstration in the
parking lot of the fulfillment center which drew the attendance of
approximately 60 workers and demanded that Amazon close down the
building until it could be deeply cleaned and sanitized. Smalls
noted that Amazon was endangering its workers and that the cleaning
company with which it then contracted was short-staffed and giving
short shrift to the cleaning process.
During this rally, Smalls opposed practices which discriminated
against minority workers and immigrants by subjecting them to
inferior terms and conditions of employment due to their
race/ethnicity. Within two hours of the public demonstration,
Amazon terminated Smalls, claiming that he was violating its
quarantine order and thereby jeopardizing the health and safety of
other employees.
An Amazon spokesperson, Kristin Kish, claimed that company managers
had repeatedly warned Smalls not to come to work and to maintain
social distancing at the workplace and asserted that he violated
both edicts.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated
February 7, 2022, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss, and
Judgment dated March 15, 2022, confirming that Amazon's motion to
dismiss is granted; and that this case is dismissed with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Smalls v. Amazon, Inc., Case No.
22-615, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on March 23, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Christian Smalls, on his own behalf and on
behalf of class of similarly situated African American and Latina/o
workers, is represented by:
Michael H. Sussman, Esq.
SUSSMAN & WATKINS
1 Railroad Avenue
P.O. Box 1005
Goshen, NY 10924
Telephone: (845) 294-3991
E-mail: sussman1@frontiernet.net
Defendants-Appellees Amazon, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC are
represented by:
Jason Schwartz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
E-mail: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Williams Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID GEORGE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 21CV00718, was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Cruz to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
March 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01892-SVK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to reimburse
business expenses in violation of the California Labor Code and
unfair competition in violation of California's Business and
Professions Code.
Amazon.com Services LLC is company that offers web service
platforms based in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy W. Loose, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com
lblas@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Kory Hines, Esq.
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-2453
Facsimile: (212) 817-9553
E-mail: khines@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Insurance Dispute Ongoing in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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 17, 2022, that
American General Life Insurance Company (AGL), the company's
subsidiary is facing a putative class action captioned "Moriarty v.
American General Life Insurance Company," No. 17-cv-1709 (S.D.
Cal.), challenging AGL's prospective application of the Act.
Plaintiff's complaint argues that policies issued and delivered
prior to January 1, 2013, like the $1 million policy issued to the
plaintiff's husband do not lapse—despite nonpayment of
premiums—if the insurer has not complied with the Act's terms.
American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
organization based in New York.
AON PLC: Wins ERISA Suit in North Carolina
------------------------------------------
Aon PLC disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2021, that the Western District of North
Carolina entered judgment in favor of Aon on all claims on October
12, 2021 with regards to class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
participants in the Lowe's 401(k) Plan where Aon Investments
provided investment consulting services to Lowe's under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., now known as Aon
Investments USA, Inc., Lowe's Companies, Inc. and the
Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies, Inc. were sued on
April 27, 2018 in said court.
The plaintiffs contend that in 2015, Lowe's imprudently placed the
Hewitt Growth Fund in the Plan's lineup of investments, the Hewitt
Growth Fund underperformed its benchmarks, and that Aon had a
conflict of interest in recommending the proprietary fund for the
Plan. The plaintiffs allege the Plan suffered over $200 million in
investment losses when compared to the eight funds it replaced.
The plaintiffs allege that Aon Investments breached its duties of
loyalty and prudence pursuant to the ERISA statute. The matter was
tried to the Court the last week of June 2021, and the Court
entered judgment in favor of Aon on all claims on October 12, 2021.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Aon PLC is a global professional services firm providing a broad
range of risk, health, and wealth solutions.
APPLIED INDUSTRIAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Applied Industrial
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Applied
Industrial Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02517 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.applied.com/
-- is a public, global company based in the U.S. and focused on the
distribution of bearings, power transmission products, engineered
fluid power components and systems, specialty flow control
solutions, and other industrial supplies.[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
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Antitrust Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a
class lawsuit was filed against the company asserting claims under
the Sherman Act and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin law. An amended
complaint was filed in October 2021, which ADM moved to dismiss.
On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC (MRE) filed a
putative class action in federal court in Illinois alleging
substantially the same operative facts and asserting claims under
the Sherman Act. On November 11, 2020, United Wisconsin Grain
Producers LLC (UWGP) and five other ethanol producers filed a
lawsuit in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the
same facts and asserting claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois,
Iowa, and Wisconsin law.
The court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the MRE and UWGP
complaints without prejudice on August 9, 2021 and September 28,
2021, respectively. On August 16, 2021, the court granted ADM's
motion to dismiss the GP complaint, dismissing one claim with
prejudice and declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claim.
MRE filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2021, which ADM moved
to dismiss on September 27, 2021. UWGP filed an amended complaint
on October 19, 2021, which ADM moved to dismiss on December 9,
2021.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is an agricultural origination and
processing company based in Illinois.
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the
company is alleged of manipulating the benchmark price used to
price and settle ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges.
On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG (AOT) filed a putative class
action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges. On March 16, 2021, AOT
filed an amended complaint adding a second named plaintiff Maize
Capital Group, LLC.
AOT and Maize allege that members of the putative class suffered
"hundreds of millions of dollars in damages" as a result of the
company's alleged actions.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is an agricultural origination and
processing company based in Illinois.
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in NE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the
company is alleged of manipulating the benchmark price used to
price and settle ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges.
On July 14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities filed
a putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same
operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent
sellers of ethanol.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is an agricultural origination and
processing company based in Illinois.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Donofrio Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY DONOFRIO,
individually and on behalf of all other Ohio residents similarly
situated, v. AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:19-cv-00058-WHR-SLO (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a settlement class solely for purposes of
preliminarily approving a settlement agreement, and further
ordering preliminary approval.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a Settlement Class defined as
follows:
"All of Defendant's property insurance policyholders who made
a Structural Loss claim: (a) for property located in the
State of Ohio during the applicable Class Periods; that (b)
resulted in an ACV Payment from which Nonmaterial
Depreciation was withheld, or that would have resulted in an
ACV Payment but for the withholding of Nonmaterial
Depreciation causing the loss to drop below the applicable
deductible, but excluding: i)Policyholders whose claims arose
under policy forms, endorsements, or riders expressly
permitting the Nonmaterial Depreciation within the text of
the policy form, endorsement or rider, i.e., by express use
of the words "depreciation" and "labor"; ii) Policyholders
who received one or more ACV Payments for claims, but not
replacement cost value payments, that exhausted the
applicable limits of insurance; iii) Policyholders whose
claims were denied or abandoned without ACV Payment; iv) the
Defendant and its officers and directors; v) Members of the
judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned and
their immediate families; and vi) Class Counsel and their
immediate families.
The Class Periods mean the following time periods:
For policyholders with policies containing a one-year suit
limitations period, Structural Loss claims with dates of loss
on or after February 25, 2018.
For policyholders with policies containing a two-year suit
limitations period, Structural Loss claims with dates of loss
on or after February 25, 2017.
Also, for purposes of preliminarily approving the Settlement
Agreement, the Plaintiff further requests that she be appointed
class representative, and that the undersigned counsel be appointed
as counsel for the class.
A copy of the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated March 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iDtcM0
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq.
WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC
P.O. Box 6
2 N. Main Street, Unit 2
Thornville, OH 43076
Telephone: (740) 785-7730
Facsimile: (740) 205-8898
E-mail: steve@whetstonelegal.com
- and -
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC
150 East Short Street, Suite 150
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (800) 614-1957
E-mail: erik@eplo.law
AVIS BUDGET: Mendez Toll Fee Suit Ongoing in NJ Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group, 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 17, 2022, that a class action suit
was filed against the company seeking damages in connection with
claims relating to its electronic toll service. Class certification
was approved by the Court.
In November 2011, "Jose Mendez v. Avis Budget Group Inc., et al."
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The plaintiff seeks to represent a purported nationwide
class and two sub-classes of certain renters of vehicles from its
Avis and Budget subsidiaries from April 2007 through December 2015.
The plaintiff seeks damages in connection with claims relating to
our electronic toll service, including that administrative fees and
toll charges were not properly disclosed to customers and/or were
excessive.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification was approved by the
Court in November 2017. The parties are currently engaged in
settlement discussions.
Avis Budget Group, Inc. is a provider of mobility solutions based
in New Jersey.
BATTERYCLERK LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BatteryClerk, LLC.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BatteryClerk, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02451 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BatteryClerk -- https://batteryclerk.com/ -- is the country's
leading online battery store for AJC branded replacement batteries
for commercial and domestic use.[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
BET INFORMATION: Moulton Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MIE MOULTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BET INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.; and
DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV38602, was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
March 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01921 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including unpaid travel time, failure to
provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.
BET Information Systems, Inc. is an online content company based in
Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas E. Daugherty, Esq.
KLINEDINST PC
501 West Broadway, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-8000
Facsimile: (619) 238-8707
E-mail: tdaugherty@klinedinstlaw.com
BULLY TOOLS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 100% Made in the USA
Bully Tools, Inc. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 100%
Made in the USA Bully Tools, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02466
(S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bully Tools -- https://bullytools.com/ -- is the finest producer of
100% USA made lawn, garden, and specialty tools for all
contractors, gardeners, and do-it-yourselfers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
C2 FINANCIAL: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C2 Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as Richard Lipp Jr., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C2 Financial
Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00405-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 28,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
C2 Financial Corporation -- https://www.c2financialcorp.com/ -- is
one of the nation's largest mortgage brokers, home to over 700 loan
originators.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
CANADA INC: More Time for Class Certification Bid Filing Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE MCMONIGLE; AMBERLY
OGDEN; MOLLY SLIWINSKI; and LAUREN WELLS, v. CANADA, INC. d/b/a
BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS; BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS USA, INC.; MARC
SAINT-ONGE; and CARLO GARIBALDI, Case No. 1:21-cv-04790-LMM (N.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the
deadline for them to file their motion for class certification
until Defendant Marc Saint-Onge has filed his Answer, and
Plaintiffs have had an opportunity conduct class discovery, up to
and including, June 21, 2022.
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 19, 2021. The
Defendant BlackOxygen Organics USA, Inc. was served on December 9,
2021, and its Answer was due on December 30, 2021.
Te Defendant Carlo Garibaldi was served on January 10, 2022, and
his Answer was due on January 31, 2022.
The Defendant 11578243 Canada, Inc.'s was served on January 31,
2022, and its Answer was due on February 22, 2022.
On March 1, 2022, this Court entered an Order which required
Plaintiffs to file proof of service for Defendant Marc Saint-Onge
by March 15, 2022.
The Defendant Marc Saint-Onge was served on February 22, 2022, and
proof of service was filed on March 1, 2022.
The Defendants BlackOxygen Organics USA, Inc., Carlo Garibaldi, and
11578243 Canada, Inc.'s have not filed an Answer and default has
been entered per the Court's March 13, 2022, Order.
The Defendant Marc Saint Onge's Answer is due March 21, 2022.
Plaintiffs cannot conduct any class discovery until Defendant Marc
Saint Onge files his Answer.
Canada Inc. operates as a media company. The Company provides
publishing and broadcasting services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JKLwin at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
Robert N. Friedman, Esq.
Eli J. Cohen, Esq.
WETHERINGTON LAW FIRM, P.C.
1800 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 370
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 888-4444
E-mail: matt@wfirm.com
robert@wfirm.com
eli@wfirm.com
CAULIPOWER LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caulipower, LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Caulipower, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02473 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Caulipower -- https://eatcaulipower.com/en/ -- is a food and
beverage manufacturing company that focuses on producing
vegetable-based pizzas and pizza crusts that are gluten-free.[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
CMG CIT: Briefing Schedule on Erguera Class Status Bid Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARITA ERGUERA, an
INDIVIDUAL ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
CMG CIT ACQUISITION, LLC; CIRCHARO ACQUISITION LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Margarita Erguera v. CMG CIT Acquisition,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01744-JLT-BAK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order granting stipulation to
extend briefing schedule regarding plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
1. The Defendant shall produce, on or before May 2, 2022,
payroll data reflecting the total number of overtime and
double-time hours worked by the putative class and
redacted weekly payroll data for 1/3 of the putative
class;
2. The deadline for Defendant to file its opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to
August 8, 2022;
3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file its reply to
Defendant's opposition is continued to September 7, 2022;
and
4. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification
shall remain vacated and shall be reset only if the Court
determines a hearing is needed.
CMG CIT operates as a health care staffing and recruiting agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wy3Bwh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for CMG CIT Acquisition, LLC, are:
Adam V. Truong, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com
Adam.Truong@jacksonlewis.com
COLAMCO INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colamco, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Colamco, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02516
(S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
COLAMCO, founded in 1982 -- https://www.colamco.com/ -- is a
leading provider of IT products and value-added services.[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
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Appeals Court Ruling in Employees' ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that an appeal is
currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the
Plan) did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
(Company Defendants) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. This action was
certified as a class action in July 2017. In July 2020, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the company's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed certain claims on consent of the parties.
In August 2020, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on the remaining claims. The company and the Plan
are contesting this action vigorously and, in September 2020,
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. The appeal is currently pending.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is into perfumes, cosmetics & other
toilet preparations based in New York.
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Markson Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS MARKSON, MARK
MCGEORGE, CLOIS MCCLENDON, and ERIC CLARK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL,
INC., CRST EXPEDITED, INC., C.R. ENGLAND, INC., WESTERN EXPRESS,
INC., A CRST-ONLY SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, ANTITRUST CLASS
INC., SOUTHERN REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT, INC., COVENANT TRANSPORT,
INC., PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., TRANSPORT, INC., and DOES 1-10,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01261-SB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order modifying the class certification order to
certify a CRST-only class or, in the alternative, for leave to file
a renewed motion to certify a CRST-only antitrust class.
The plaintiffs will move pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure for an order certifying a class regarding
plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim defined as follows:
"All current or former drivers "under contract" as motor
vehicle carrier drivers employed by defendants CRST
International, Inc. or CRST Expedited, Inc. during the Class
Period (the "Antitrust Class").
The Plaintiffs further move for an order certifying a subclass for
purposes of plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim comprised of all class
members that resided in the state of California at any time while
"under contract" with one of the defendants during the Class Period
(the "California Antitrust Subclass").
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iMEuxn
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
rnath@susmangodfrey.com
DIGITAL BASEMENT: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Digital Basement,
LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Digital Basement, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02471 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Digital Basement LLC -- http://digitalbasementllc.com/-- is a
privately-held company located in Roswell, GA, designs and sells
funny, pop culture, and fitness apparel through e-commerce
properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DRIP HYDRATION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drip Hydration Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Drip Hydration Inc. doing
business as: Drip Hydration, Case No. 1:22-cv-02396 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Drip Hydration -- https://driphydration.com/ -- is a mobile IV
hydration company, providing in-home IV infusions administered by
certified nurses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
DROPBOX INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Dropbox, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that on December 8, 2021,
the court entered an order approving a settlement and dismissing a
securities litigation filed against the company.
It is currently involved in four putative class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the federal securities laws that were filed
on August 30, 2019, September 5, 2019, September 13, 2019, and
October 3, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
San Mateo County, against Dropbox, certain of its officers and
directors, underwriters of its IPO, and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P.
and certain of its affiliated entities.
On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the
Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The six lawsuits each make the same or
similar allegations of violations of federal securities laws, for
allegedly making materially false and misleading statements in, or
omitting material information from, its IPO registration statement.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint. On April 16, 2020, Dropbox filed a motion to dismiss the
federal consolidated class action complaint. On October 21, 2020,
the federal court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend setting a deadline of
January 6, 2021 for the Federal Plaintiffs to file any amended
complaint. The federal court extended this deadline to February 22,
2021 to provide time for the parties to explore resolving the case.
On February 11, 2021, the parties attended mediation and reached a
settlement in principle for an immaterial amount subject to final
documentation and preliminary and final approval by the court.
On July 22, 2021, the court held a preliminary settlement approval
hearing. On August 3, 2021, it entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and providing for notice to the class. The
court held a hearing for final approval of the settlement on
December 2, 2021. On December 8, 2021, it entered an order
approving the settlement and dismissing the case.
Dropbox is a cloud storage service provider.
DUN & BRADSTREET: Batis Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dun & Bradstreet
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Odette R. Batis, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Dun & Bradstreet
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01924-AGT (N.D. Cal., March 25,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
The Dun & Bradstreet -- http://www.dnb.com/-- is an American
company that provides commercial data, analytics, and insights for
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
Marie Noel Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 358-6913
Fax: (415) 358-6923
Email: MRam@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
EGYPTAIR AIRLINES: Elmedani Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Egyptair Airlines
Company. The case is styled as Yehia Elmedani, and all others
similarly situated v. Egyptair Airlines Company, Case No.
651342/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., March 15, 2022).
Egyptair -- http://www.egyptair.com/-- is the state-owned flag
carrier of Egypt. The airline is headquartered at Cairo
International Airport, its main hub, operating scheduled passenger
and freight services to 70 destinations in the Middle East, Europe,
Africa, Asia, and the Americas.[BN]
ELLUSIONIST.COM INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ellusionist.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ellusionist.com, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02465 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ellusionist -- https://ellusionist.com/ -- is the largest online
magic retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
EMU AUSTRALIA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMU Australia, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. EMU Australia, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02415 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
EMU Australia -- https://www.emuaustralia.com/ -- is an Australian
lifestyle brand that designs, produces and markets footwear 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
ENERGY TRANSFER: State Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that on November 3,
2021, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of
Chancery's judgment in favor of Regency defendants in a class
action complaint filed by a purported Regency unitholder with
regard to Regency-Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.'s (a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Energy Transfer) merger.
On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a Regency unitholder alleges
that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement.
On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.
Plaintiff appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the Court of Chancery. Plaintiff then filed an Amended
Verified Class Action Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.
The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants
other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC.
The Court of Chancery later granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for class certification. Trial was held on December 10-16, 2019,
and a post-trial hearing was held on May 6, 2020. On February 15,
2021, the Court of Chancery ruled in favor of the Regency
Defendants on all claims at issue in this litigation, determined
that the Regency Merger was fair and reasonable to Regency, and
denied Plaintiff any relief.
On November 3, 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court
of Chancery's judgment in favor of Regency Defendants, bringing
this matter to a conclusion.
Energy Transfer LP is a Delaware limited partnership that is into
natural gas operations, crude oil, NGL and refined products
transportation, terminal services and acquisition and marketing
activities, as well as NGL storage and fractionation services.
ENVIGO RMS: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------
Inotiv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, that Envigo RMS Holding Corp.
(Inotiv's subsidiary) is a defendant in a purported class action
and a related action under California's Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 brought by Jacob Greenwell, a former employee of
Envigo, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of California,
Alameda County.
The complaint alleges that Envigo violated certain wage and hour
requirements under the California Labor Code. The class action
complaint seeks certification of a class of similarly situated
employees and the award of actual, consequential and incidental
losses and damages for the alleged violations. The complaint seeks
civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code and
attorney's fees.
Inotiv, Inc. and its subsidiaries and a variable interest entity
comprise a contract research organization specializing in
nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services.
The company also manufactures scientific instruments for life
sciences research, which it sells with related software for use by
pharmaceutical companies, universities, government research centers
and medical research institutions.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE: Cardenas Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR SANTOS CARDENAS
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Eternal Sunshine Cafe, LLC and Michael Pellegrino, Case No.
7:21-cv-205 (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order granting his motion to conditionally certify a collective
action and facilitate notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
to:
"all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who are
or were employed by the Eternal Sunshine Cafe and/or Michael
Pellegrino beginning March 2019 to the present."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qFjaP4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Hanley, Esq.
Nathanial Ulmer, Esq.
Norwood Blanchard, Esq.
CROSSLEY McINTOSH COLLIER
HANLEY & EDES, PLLC
5002 Randall Parkway
Wilmington, NC 28403
Telephone: (910) 762-9711
Facsimile: (910) 256-0310
EVENTBRITE INC: Agrees to Settle IPO-Related Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that parties in an
IPO-related shareholder suit have agreed to settle the dispute.
On June 24, 2019, the state court consolidated two state actions
pending at that time. On July 24, 2019, the two plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint generally
alleged that Eventbrite misrepresented and/or omitted material
information in the IPO offering documents in violation of the
Securities Act and sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors.
On August 23, 2019, defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated
complaint, which the court sustained with leave to amend at a
hearing on November 1, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on February 10, 2020. Defendants filed
demurrers to said complaint on March 26, 2020. On June 23, 2020,
the court sustained the demurrers with leave to amend. On November
9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated
complaint. On November 20, 2020, defendants filed demurrers to the
complaint, which were overruled on December 17, 2020.
On January 15, 2021, defendants filed their answers to the
complaint. On January 22, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification. On February 11, 2021, the parties stipulated
to class certification, and on February 17, 2021, the Court entered
an order certifying a class of "all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Eventbrite, Inc. Class A common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with Eventbrite's September 2018
Initial Public Offering and who were damaged thereby."
On October 26, 2021, the company entered into a binding settlement
agreement with the two plaintiffs.
EVENTBRITE INC: Settlement Deal in Securities Class Action Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that the court
disapproved a settlement agreement between the parties of a
securities class action.
Beginning on April 15, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
three putative securities class action complaints in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Mateo, against
Eventbrite, certain of its executives and directors, and its
underwriters for the company's initial public offering (IPO). Some
of these actions also name as defendants venture capital firms that
were investors in the company as of the IPO.
On August 22, 2019, the federal court consolidated the two pending
actions. On October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiffs in the Federal
Action filed an amended consolidated complaint. That complaint
alleged that the company misrepresented and/or omitted material
information in its IPO offering documents in violation of the
Securities Act. It also challenged public statements made after the
IPO in violation of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of
investors. On December 11, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. On April 28, 2020, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend
and set a deadline of June 24, 2020 for lead plaintiffs to file
their second amended consolidated complaint. On June 22, 2020, the
court extended lead plaintiffs' deadline to file their second
amended consolidated complaint to August 10, 2020.
On July 29, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action. On August 27, 2020,
the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 21, 2020, the
court vacated the preliminary approval hearing and on October 30,
2020 and issued an order continuing the preliminary approval
hearing.
On January 22, 2021, the court issued an order denying without
prejudice the motion for preliminary approval. On February 9, 2021,
the company gave notice to the lead plaintiffs that, in light of
the denial of the preliminary approval motion, it was terminating
the settlement agreement.
Eventbrite is a global self-service ticketing and experience
technology platform that serves event creators and empowers their
success.
EVENTBRITE INC: Snow Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that the case
captioned "Snow, et al. v. Eventbrite, Inc." Case No. 20-cv-03698
filed against the company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California is currently stayed pending
initial stages of arbitration.
On June 4, 2020, three plaintiffs, seeking to represent a proposed
class of individuals who purchased tickets on or after June 3,
2016, allege that Eventbrite failed to provide an opportunity for
purchasers of tickets to events sold through Eventbrite's platform
to obtain a refund where the event is postponed, rescheduled, or
canceled. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in addition to
restitution and monetary damages under California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, in
addition to claims brought under California common law.
Eventbrite brought a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to its
Terms of Service. The court denied that motion and the company
thereafter answered plaintiffs' complaint and brought a second
motion to compel arbitration, based in part on facts established
via the company's answer. The court granted that motion on
September 2, 2021, and stayed the suit pending the results of
arbitration. Two of the named plaintiffs have since initiated
individual arbitrations pursuant to the company's Terms of Service.
The company has filed responses to those individual demands and the
parties are awaiting appointment of arbitrators.
Eventbrite is a global self-service ticketing and experience
technology platform that serves event creators and empowers their
success.
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES: Robertson Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Randall Robertson, Julian A. Graves,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas LLC, Family Dollar
Services LLC, Case No. 58CV-22-00085, was removed from the Pope
County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas on March 24, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00269-BSM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Gastel, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Janna Maples, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37204
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 255-5419
Email: beng@bsjfirm.com
gerards@bsjfirm.com
- and -
James A. Streett, Esq.
STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 West Main
Russellville, AR 72801
Phone: (479) 968-2030
Email: james@streettlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Katherine Church Campbell, Esq.
Marshall S. Ney, Esq.
FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
3350 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301
Rogers, AR 72758
Phone: (479) 695-6040
Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com
mney@fridayfirm.com
FASHION NOVA: Blum Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenifer Blum, Jamie Dumelle, Amanda Offley,
Kerry Hines, Tanisha DiVito, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-02044-PA-E (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Fashion Nova -- https://www.fashionnova.com/ -- is the world's
leading quick-to-market apparel and lifestyle brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER PA
1990 North California Boulevard Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: Efilings@ginsburglawgroup.com
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Reset to Nov. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. First Advantage
Background Services Corp., Case No. 5:21-cv-06071 (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order resetting the Oral
Argument on Class Certification previously set for Aug. 1, 2022 for
Nov. 16, 2022.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Consumer Credit.[CC]
FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Faces Insurance Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that it is facing a
class action suit alleging that its subsidiary, First Penn-Pacific
Life Insurance Company, breached the terms of the life insurance
policy of one of its policy holders by deducting non-guaranteed
cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the
policies.
Case "Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company
("FPP")," No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action
that was filed on April 13, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff
seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies
issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and
seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause
of action asserted.
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is a holding company, which
operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through
subsidiary companies based in Pennsylvania.
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL OLIGER AND CAROL
OLIGER, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE DARRELL AND CAROL OLIGER REVOCABLE TRUST
JUNE 19, 2007, PULOMA PROPERTIES, LLC, LGTD INVESTMENTS, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01146-LPR (E.D.
Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification, appointment of class
representatives, and appointment of class counsel, on behalf of the
following Class:
"All persons who are or have been since January 2019, royalty
owners in Arkansas wells where Flywheel has owned and
operated under a lease form with one of the following royalty
payment provisions:
-- ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED ROYALTY CLAUSE
Lease Form No. 1: that contain the following language,
"Lessee shall pay Lessor [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the
proceeds derived from the sale of all gas (including
substances contained in such gas) produced, saved, and
sold by the Lessee. Proceeds are defined as the actual
amount received by the Lessee for the sale of said gas."
Lease Form No. 2: that contain the following language,
"Lessee shall pay Lessor [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the
proceeds derived from the sale of all gas (including
substances contained in such gas) produced, saved, and
sold by the Lessee. Proceeds are defined as the actual
amount received by the Lessee for the sale of said gas."
-- NO DEDUCTION, NO COST CLAUSES
Lease Form No. 3: that contain the following language,
-- "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the
Lease, no deduction shall be made for the producing,
gathering, storing, separating, treating compressing or
dehydrating performed with respect to a well on the leased
premises/unit area subject thereto."
Lease Form No. 4: that contain the following language,
"notwithstanding any language herein to the contrary, all
oil, gas or other proceeds accruing to the Lessor under
this lease or by state law shall be without deduction,
directly or indirectly, for the cost of producing,
gathering, storing, separating, treating, dehydrating,
compressing, processing, transporting, and marketing the
oil, gas and other products produced hereunder to
transform-the product into marketable form."
Lease Form No. 5: that contain the following language,
"Lessor shall receive a [Royalty Rate Percentage] royalty.
All oil, gas or other proceeds accruing to the Lessor
under the Lease or by state law shall be without
deduction, directly or indirectly for the cost."
Lease Form No. 6: that contain the following language,
"Lessee agrees that all royalties accruing under this
lease shall be without deduction (except applicable taxes)
for the costs."
Lease Form No. 7: that contain the following language,
"There shall be no cost charged to the royalty interest
created under this lease, except severance and applicable
taxes."
Lease Form No. 8: that contain the following language,
"Lessor shall not be charged for marketing costs or
transportation costs or lift costs nor any other expense."
Lease Form No. 9: that contain the following language,
"Lessor's royalty shall not bear, either directly or
indirectly any part of the costs or expenses."
Lease Form No. 10: that contain the following language,
"Any deduction for the expenses of production, gathering,
dehydration, compression, transportation, manufacturing,
processing, treating or marketing of such gas shall be
added to the price received by Lessee for such gas so that
Lessor's royalty shall not be charged directly or
indirectly with any such expenses."
-- GROSS PROCEEDS CLAUSE
Lease Form No. 11: that contain the following language,
"To pay to Lessor for gas [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the
gross proceeds, at the mouth of the well, received by
Lessee for the gas."
Lease Form No. 12:that contain the following language, "To
pay Lessor for gas [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the gross
proceeds received by Lessee for the gas sold Lessee shall
not deduct any costs or expenses from such gross proceeds
except Lessor's pro rata share any severance taxes that
may become payable out of Lessor's share gross
production."
Lease Form No. 13: that contain the following language,
"It is agreed by Lessor and Lessee that wherever the words
[Royalty Rate Percentage] appears same is hereby amended
to read "[Royalty Rate Percentage] gross."
Lease Form No. 14: that contain the following language,
"To pay Lessor for gas [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the
gross proceeds at the mouth of the well."
Lease Form No. 15: that contain the following language,
"Lessor is to receive [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the
gross proceeds…at the wellhead with no deduction of any
cost."
Lease Form No. 16: that contain the following language,
"[royalty rate percentage] amended to [royalty rate
percentage] gross based on current market value at the
wellhead."
Lease Form No. 17: that contain the following language,
"the term 'Market Value' of gas mean the gross proceeds
received by the Lessee."
Lease Form No. 18: Lessors coded in Flywheel's electronic
royalty accounting system in such a manner that would
indicate the owners are deriving royalty payments from
wells pursuant to "gross royalty leases."
Flywheel Energy operates as an oil and gas exploration and
production company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tDfcbv
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
M. Edward Morgan, Esq.
Nathan S. Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
244 Highway 65 North, Suite 5
Clinton, AR 72031-7085
Telephone: (501) 745-4044
Facsimile: (501) 745-5358
E-mail: eddie@medwardmorgan.com
nathan@morganlawfirmpa.com
- and -
Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
Will T. Crowder, Esq.
THRASH LAW FIRM , P.A.
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
Telephone: (501) 374-1058
Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
G. Alan Perkins, Esq.
M. Christine Dillard, Esq.
Samuel S. McLelland, Esq.
PPGMR LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 3446
Little Rock, AR 72203-3446
Telephone: (501) 603-9000
Facsimile: (501) 603-0556
E-mail: Alan@ppgmrlaw.com
Christine@ppgmrlaw.com
Sam@ppgmrlaw.com
FOREST LABS: "Namenda" Consolidated Antitrust Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that lawsuits are pending
against Forest Laboratories, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiaries of
AbbVie) and others generally alleging that 2009 and 2010 patent
litigation settlements involving Namenda entered into between
Forest and generic companies and other conduct by Forest involving
Namenda, violated state antitrust, unfair and deceptive trade
practices, and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
The lawsuits, purported class actions filed by indirect purchasers
of Namenda, are consolidated as "In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation" in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical
company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience,
aesthetics and eye care.
FOREST LABS: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit over "Bystolic"
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that lawsuits are pending
against Forest Laboratories, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiaries of
AbbVie) and others generally alleging that 2012 and 2013 patent
litigation settlements involving "Bystolic" with six generic
manufacturers violated federal and state antitrust laws and state
unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.
Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees. The lawsuits, purported class actions filed on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Bystolic, are
consolidated as "In re: Bystolic Antitrust Litigation" in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical
company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience,
aesthetics and eye care.
FRUIT GUYS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fruit Guys, LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Fruit Guys, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02522 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The FruitGuys -- https://fruitguys.com/ -- is a company
headquartered in South San Francisco, CA, that delivers fresh fruit
to more than 3,000 businesses around 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
GENERAL MILLS: Schweinsburg Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Loretta Schweinsburg, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. General Mills, Inc., General Mills
Sales, Inc., Case No. 37-02022-00006951-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on March 28, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
General Mills, Inc. -- http://www.generalmills.com/-- is an
American multinational manufacturer and marketer of branded
consumer foods sold through retail stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
THE WESTON FIRM
1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 798-2006
Fax: (480) 247-4553
Email: greg@westonfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David T Biderman, Esq.
Jasmine Wei-Ming Wetherell, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
Phone: (310) 788-9900
Fax: (310) 843-1284
Email: dbiderman@perkinscoie.com
jwetherell@perkinscoie.com
GENUINE DATA: Jackson Files FCRA Suit in D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genuine Data
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Nigel E. Jackson, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Genuine Data
Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00985-MGL (D.S.C., March 25,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Genuine Data Services -- http://www.genuinedataservices.com/--
furnishes raw public records data in bulk to consumer reporting
agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Penny Hays Cauley, Esq.
William Kyle Geddings, Esq.
HAYS CAULEY PC
1303 W Evans Street
Florence, SC 29501
Phone: (843) 665-1717
Email: phc917@hayscauley.com
will@hayscauley.com
GODADDY INC: Settlement Reached in Bennett Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy 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 17, 2022, that on June 13, 2019, the company
entered into an agreement in principle to settle the class action
complaint, "Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com" (Case No.
2:16-cv-03908-DLR) (D. Ariz.), filed on June 20, 2016.
The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA). On September 23, 2019, the
parties fully executed a written settlement agreement. On December
16, 2019, the company amended the settlement agreement to include
two additional putative class action cases, which also alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA):
John Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No. 2:16-cv-00254, D.
Ariz.), appeal pending 18-16048 (9th Cir.) and Susan Drazen v.
GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No 19-cv-00563, S.D. Ala.).
GoDaddy is into serving a large market of everyday entrepreneurs
based in Arizona.
GOOGLE LLC: Stipulation on Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASOM BROWN, WILLIAM
BYATT, JEREMY DAVIS, CHRISTOPHER CASTILLO, and MONIQUE TRUJILLO
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. GOOGLE
LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation continuing
deadlines for discovery and class certification as follows:
1. The deadline for Google's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Sanctions Motion is extended from March 24, 2022 to March
31, 2022.
2. The deadline for exchange of opening expert reports is
extended from March 25, 2022 to April 1, 2022.
3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply in support of the
Sanctions Motion is extended from April 7, 2022 to April
11, 2022.
4. The deadline for the Parties' submission of Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Sanctions
Motion is extended from April 14, 2022 to April 18, 2022.
5. The evidentiary hearing on the Sanctions Motion scheduled
for April 21, 2022 will proceed as scheduled, on April 21,
2022.
6. The deadline for exchange of rebuttal expert reports is
extended from April 22, 2022 to May 6, 2022.
7. The deadline for close of expert discovery is extended from
May 26, 2022 to June 2, 2022.
Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include a search engine, online advertising technologies, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.
A copy of the Parties' motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3iDt4w0 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark C. Mao, Esq.
Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41 st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293 6858
Facsimile: (415) 999 9695
E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com
brichardson@bsfllp.com
- and -
James W. Lee, Esq.
Rossana Baeza, Esq.
100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 539-8400
Facsimile: (305) 539-1304
E-mail: jlee@bsfllp.com
rbaeza@bsfllp.com
- and -
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
Steven Shepard, Esq.
Alexander P. Frawley, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
srabin@susmangodfrey.com
sshepard@susmangodfrey.com
afrawley@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Amanda Bonn, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: abonn@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 222-4736
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
rmcgee@forthepeople.com
mram@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
Teuta Fani, Esq.
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 705-7400
Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
teutafani@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
Viola Trebicka, Esq.
Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq.
Alyssa G. Olson, Esq.
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
crystalnixhines@quinnemanuel.com
alyolson@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Diane M. Doolittle, Esq.
Sara Jenkins, Esq.
Josef Ansorge, Esq.
Carl Spilly, Esq.
Jonathan Tse, Esq.
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
E-mail: dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com
sarajenkins@quinnemanuel.com
jomairecrawford@quinnemanuel.com
josefansorge@quinnemanuel.com
carlspilly@quinnemanuel.com
jonathantse@quinnemanuel.com
GR8 GRANOLA: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GR8 Granola, LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GR8 Granola, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02520 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
GR8 Granola -- https://www.gr8nola.com/ -- offers healthy,
low-sugar superfood granola.[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
GRANDIZIO WILKINS: Stamat Files Suit in D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grandizio Wilkins
Little & Matthews, LLP. The case is styled as Spyro Stamat,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Grandizio Wilkins Little & Matthews, LLP, Case No.
1:22-cv-00747-BPG (D. Md., March 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Grandizio, Wilkins, Little & Matthews, LLP --
https://www.gwlmcpa.com/ -- is a full service, Maryland-based
accounting firm that provides audits, tax services and management
advisory services for businesses, business owners and high net
worth individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
15453 Indianola Drive
Derwood, MD 20855
Phone: (443) 980-6119
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: tpacheco@milberg.com
GREEN PARK SNACKS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Park Snacks,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Green Park Snacks, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02524 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Green Park Snacks -- https://www.greenparkbrands.com/ -- operates
as a natural snack food company. The Company offers puffs, peas,
chilli, and cheese products.[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
HAWAI'I: Seeks to Strike Opulento Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA OPULENTO, on behalf
of the Estate of JESSICA FORTSON and FRANK HAMPP, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE OF HAWAI'I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; NOLAN ESPINDA, Director, Hawai'i
Department of Public Safety; GAVIN TAKENAKA, Health Care Director,
Hawai'i Department of Public Safety, Corrections Division; DOES
1-30, Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-LEK-RT (D. Haw.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order striking Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed on February 11, 2022.
The Hawaii Department of Public Safety is a department within the
executive branch of the government of the U.S. state of Hawaii.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qHpg14 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Holly T. Shikada, Esq.
Caron M. Inagaki, Esq.
Kendall J. Moser, Esq.
William K. Awong, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 586-1494
Facsimile: (808) 586-1369
E-mail: William.K.Awong@hawaii.gov
Kendall.J.Moser@hawaii.gov
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Settles Putative Class Suit for $16.8MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on October
15, 2021 the company's directors' and officers' liability insurance
carriers paid a $16.8 million settlement to resolve a putative
shareholder class action lawsuit originally filed against the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 22, 2019.
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. provides management, administrative
and operating expertise and services to the housekeeping, laundry,
linen, facility maintenance and dietary service departments of
healthcare facilities, including nursing homes, retirement
complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals located throughout
the United States.
HEAT FACTORY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Heat Factory,
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Heat Factory, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02418 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Heat Factory -- https://www.heatfactory.com/ -- is the oldest and
most recognized North American warmer brand in the outdoor
industry.[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
ICON CLINICAL: Ct. Conditionally Certifies Nesbeth Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS NESBETH, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01444-PD (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying for settlement purposes as a
class action on behalf of the following individuals:
"All persons who participated in the Plan at any time
during the Class Period [March 26, 2015 through the date
of this Order], including any Beneficiary of a deceased
Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the
Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject
to a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated
in the Plan at any time during the Class Period;"
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and
their Beneficiaries;
2. appointing Carlos Nesbeth, Amit Godambe, Jenny Gallery,
Misty Howell, and Micah Webb as Class Representatives;
3. appointing the law firm Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Class
Counsel;
4. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and
Proposed Plan of Allocatio;
5. approving the Proposed Settlement Notice Plan;
6. appointing JND Legal Administration as the Settlement
Administrator and directing to provide Class Notice and
otherwise ASSIST in administration of the Settlement
Agreement, as provided in the Settlement Agreement and
Plan of Allocation;
7. directing the Defendants, through the Plan's Recordkeeper,
to provide forthwith Class Data to Class Counsel and the
Settlement Administrator;
8. directing the Settlement Administrator to all Class
Members by first-class U.S. mail and, if available, e-mail
the Class Notice and any necessary Election Forms no later
than Monday, April 11, 2022 and otherwise follow the
Notice provisions in the Settlement Agreement and Plan of
Allocation;
9. directing Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and costs and
a service award for the Class Representatives no later
than Thursday, May 12, 2022;
10. directing The Settlement Administrator to file, no later
than Thursday, May 12, 2022, a declaration confirming that
the Class Notice and other required documents were sent to
the Class;
11. directing any Class Member who wishes to object to the
Settlement Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, the Request
for Service Awards for the Class Representative, or Class
Counsels' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, or
otherwise be heard concerning this Settlement, to shall
file an Objection with the Court. The Objection must be
postmarked no later than Friday, June 10, 2022. The
Objection must set forth: (1) the Objector's name and
contact information; (2) the name and address of
Objector's counsel (if represented); (3) a written
statement of any objections to the Settlement; and (4) the
signature of the Objector (or his or her attorney). Any
Class Member who fails to make his or her objection in
this manner shall be deemed to have WAIVED such objection;
12. directing the Plaintiffs to file, no later than Thursday,
May 12, 2022, their Motion for final approval and all
supporting documents;
13. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class;
and
14. denying as moot the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Icon is a global provider of outsourced development and
commercialisation services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and
medical device industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tJgp0N at no extra charge.[CC]
INSPIRED BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspired Beauty
Stories Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Inspired Beauty Stories Inc. doing business as: Kulfi, Case No.
1:22-cv-02437 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Inspired Beauty Stories Inc. doing business as Kulfi --
https://www.inspiredbeauty.com/ -- is a community that provides
beauty products and content.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
JADE INDUSTRIES: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jade Industries, Inc.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Jade Industries, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02470 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jade Industries, Inc. -- http://www.jadeyoga.com/-- is located in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania and is a supplier of Rubber Mats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits Related to Pelvic Melsh Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2022, that class actions and individual
personal injury cases or claims seeking damages for alleged injury
resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices have been commenced in
various countries outside of the United States, including claims
and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and class actions
in Israel, Australia and Canada.
The class actions in Canada were discontinued in 2020 as a result
of a settlement of a group of cases and an agreement to resolve the
Israeli class action was reached in May 2021. The parties in the
Israeli class action are currently negotiating the wording and some
of the terms thereof and once finalized, the settlement will be
subject to court approval.
Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and
sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ct. Narrows Claims in California Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2022, that the Court granted in part and
denied in part the renewed motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against
Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity
provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development
and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to
treat HIV. The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into
similar agreements with Bristol-Myers Squibb and Japan Tobacco.
In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in April 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the renewed motion to dismiss.
In December 2021, several insurance companies and other payers
filed individual "Opt-Out" complaints containing allegations
similar to the original complaint. Discovery is ongoing.
Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and
sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit in Canadian Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2022, that proposed class actions have
been filed in Canada against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Inc.,
and many other industry members, by and on behalf of people who
used opioids (for personal injuries), municipalities and First
Nations bands.
In October 2019, an antitrust complaint was filed by private
plaintiffs in federal court in Tennessee and is pending transfer to
the MDL. These actions allege a variety of claims related to opioid
marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair
competition, public nuisance, consumer fraud violations, deceptive
acts and practices, false claims and unjust enrichment.
The suits generally seek penalties and/or injunctive and monetary
relief and, in some of the suits, the plaintiffs are seeking joint
and several liability among the defendants. An adverse judgment in
any of these lawsuits could result in the imposition of large
monetary penalties and significant damages including, punitive
damages, cost of abatement, substantial fines, equitable remedies
and other sanctions.
Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and
sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces ERISA Suit in New Jersey Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2022, that a class action was filed
against the company alleging that they have breached their
fiduciary duties.
In January 2019, two ERISA class action lawsuits were filed by
participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against Johnson
& Johnson, its Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain named
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so
because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in
body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S® Baby Powder.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April
2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion but granted leave to
amend. In June 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and in
July 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
As of October 2020, briefing on Defendants' motion was complete. In
February 2021, the Court granted Defendants' motion, and granted
Plaintiffs leave to amend. In April 2021, Plaintiffs informed the
Court that they did not intend to file an amended complaint, and
the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
In May 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third
Circuit. In July 2021, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the
Third Circuit and in September 2021, Defendants filed their
response brief, and in October 2021, Plaintiffs filed their reply
brief. In January 2022, the Third Circuit heard oral argument.
Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and
sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Ongoing on Price-Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2022, that a consolidated class action
complaint by contact lens patients was filed by the plaintiff and
trial is ongoing.
In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses.
The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in
November 2015. Discovery and pre-trial motion practice are
complete.
Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and
sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey.
JUUL LABS: Deforest Area Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEFOREST AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01866-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Deforest Area School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 500 South Cleveland Avenue in Deforest,
Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Whittemore-Prescott Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHITTEMORE-PRESCOTT AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01881 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools is a unified school district with
its offices located at 8970 Prescott Road in Whittemore, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Causes Youth Health Crisis, Monticello Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTICELLO 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-01875-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Monticello Academy Charter School is a unified school district with
its offices located at 2782 South Corporate Park Drive in West
Valley City, Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Ascent Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASCENT ACADEMIES OF UTAH, 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-01868 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Ascent Academies of Utah is a unified school district with its
offices located at 5662 West 8200 South in West Jordan, 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: Faces Logan City Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01873 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Logan City School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 101 West Center Street in Logan, 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: Morristown Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------
MORRISTOWN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01885 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Morristown Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 408 Gouverneur Street in Morristown,
New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, West Seneca Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WEST SENECA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01859 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
West Seneca Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 1397 Orchard Park Road in West Seneca,
New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Saline Area Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALINE AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01877 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Saline Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 7265 North Ann Arbor Street in Saline, 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: Tonawanda City Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
TONAWANDA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01861 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Tonawanda City School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 100 Hinds Street in Tonawanda, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Rockwell Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROCKWELL CHARTER HIGH 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-01864 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.
Rockwell Charter High School is a unified school district with its
offices located at 3435 East Stonebridge Lane in Eagle Mountain,
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
KERATIN HOLDINGS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keratin Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Keratin Holdings LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02469 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Keratin Holdings LLC -- http://www.keratincomplex.com/-- is
located in Boca Raton, Florida and is part of the Management of
Companies and Enterprises Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
KETTLE FOODS: Pressnell Files Suit in D. Oregon
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kettle Foods
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Douglas Pressnell, Jill Clark,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kettle
Foods Holdings, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00468-MK (D. Ore., March 25,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Kettle Foods, Inc. -- https://www.kettlebrand.com/ -- is an
American manufacturer of potato chips, based in Salem, Oregon,
United States, with a European and Middle East headquarters in
Norwich, United Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq.
Cody O. Berne, Esq.
Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 227-1600
Fax: (503) 227-6840
Email: kdubanevich@stollberne.com
cberne@stollberne.com
KING KULLEN GROCERY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against King Kullen Grocery
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. King Kullen Grocery
Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01674 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
King Kullen Grocery -- https://kingkullen.com/ -- has been offering
Long Island families quality & affordable groceries for over 91
years.[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
KOOLATRON USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koolatron USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Koolatron USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02417 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Koolatron -- https://www.koolatron.com/ -- is a global leader in
thermoelectric and refrigeration products and is widely known for
its flagship line of made-in-Canada 12 volt cooler/warmers 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
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Securities Suit in Illinois Court
----------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a class action was
filed against the company and its officers and directors.
Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Kraft Heinz Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors are currently defendants in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Union Asset
Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al."
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, which motion the court
denied in an order dated August 11, 2021.
The Kraft Heinz Company is into canned, frozen & preserved fruit,
veg & food specialties based in Pennsylvania.
KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne ERISA Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a class action was
dismissed after the plaintiff filed a stipulation of voluntary
dismissal with prejudice.
Employee Benefits Administration Board and certain of The Kraft
Heinz Company's current and former officers and employees were
defendants in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
class action lawsuit, "Osborne v. Employee Benefits Administration
Board of Kraft Heinz, et al.," which is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current
and former employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of
various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled
investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust
during the period of May 4, 2017 through February 21, 2019. An
amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019.
The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of ERISA
based on alleged breaches of obligations as fiduciaries subject to
ERISA by allowing the Master Trust to continue investing in our
common stock, and alleges additional breaches of fiduciary duties
by current and former officers for their purported failure to
monitor Master Trust fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and other relief.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
motion the court granted in an order dated August 23, 2021, before
entering judgment in favor of the Company on September 14, 2021.
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2021. The
parties subsequently filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal
with prejudice on December 7, 2021, and the appellate court
dismissed the appeal with prejudice on that same date.
The Kraft Heinz Company is into canned, frozen & preserved fruit,
veg & food specialties based in Pennsylvania.
LIL BUCKS LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lil Bucks LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lil Bucks LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02519
(S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lil Bucks -- https://lovelilbucks.com/ -- is an Aussie-inspired,
gluten-free, low sugar granola alternative made from sprouted
buckwheat seeds.[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
LINCOLN LIFE: Nitkewicz Insurance Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit against Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY)
was dismissed. The lawsuit alleges that LLANY failed to refund
unearned premium in violation of New York Insurance law.
The case captioned "Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity
Company of New York" pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative
class action that was filed on August 24, 2020.
Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust,
seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which
planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for
any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured's
death.
Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in
violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in
connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain
insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and
prejudgment interest on behalf of the various classes and
subclasses. On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice,
LLANY's November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter. On July 28,
2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to this
ruling.
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is a holding company, which
operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through
subsidiary companies based in Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN LIFE: Settlement in Hanks Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the class action
settlement in the case against Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of
New York
is preliminary approved by the court and final fairness hearing is
set for June 2022.
The case captioned "Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York (LLANY) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company
(Voya)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was
served on LLANY on August 12, 2016.
Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. On March 13,
2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for
class certification for the breach of contract claim and denying
such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim against
LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an order
approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with respect
to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a defendant
in the case.
In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the defense of this case. On September 30,
2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
granted in part Voya's motion for summary judgment. On October 22,
2021, the parties informed the presiding judge that they have
reached a settlement of the action, subject to court approval. On
January 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.
The settlement, subject to final approval by the court, consists of
$92.5 million in pre-tax cash and a five-year cost of insurance
rate freeze, among other terms. On February 3, 2022, the court
preliminarily approved the class action settlement and set a final
fairness hearing for June 9, 2022.
Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies based in Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN LIFE: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the case
captioned "Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity
Company of New York, (LLANY)" filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York in June 27, 2019, Case No.
1:19-cv-06004, is still ongoing.
Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to
represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policies.
Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or own "life insurance policies issued in the State of New
York." Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class
and subclass.
Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies based in Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Junks Glover Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a class lawsuit
was filed against the company alleging that they have charged more
for the non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the
policy. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint in
its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint, which the company had opposed.
The case "Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827,
is a putative class action that was served on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for the non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.
Glover seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal
life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed
cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Glover's
policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders.
Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies based in Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS Insurance Suit Ongoing in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the case
captioned "TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for
Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company (LNL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania in July 17, 2018, No.
2:18-cv-02989 alleging that they have charged more for
non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy, is
still ongoing.
Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to
represent all universal life and variable universal life
policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors
containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf
of all such policyholders.
Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies based in Pennsylvania.
LITTLE BEET TABLE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Beet Table,
LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Little Beet Table, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01678 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Little Beet Table -- https://www.thelittlebeettable.com/ -- is a
vibrant, veggie-inspired restaurant serving Chevy Chase, and Park
Avenue in NYC..[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
LUPTON EXCAVATION: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lupton Excavation,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Juan Manuel Esquivel Torres, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lupton Excavation,
Inc., Does 1 – 10, Case No. 34-2022-00317401-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 25, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."
Lupton Excavation, Inc. was founded in 1987. The Company's line of
business includes providing excavation work and digging
foundations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
LYRICAL FOODS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyrical Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lyrical Foods, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02518 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lyrical Foods, Inc., doing business as Kite Hill --
https://www.kite-hill.com/ -- offers dairy products. The Company
provides yogurts, cheese, and other products.[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
MARLETTE FUNDING: Faces Usury-Related Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that in June 2021, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against the online lender
Marlette Funding LLC in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, alleging that the company, doing business as
Best Egg, was the true lender of usurious loans, with a rate of
interest far in excess of the 6% rate permitted to be charged in
Pennsylvania by unlicensed non-banks, originated through a
partnership with Cross River Bank (Case No. 21-CV-985).
Upstart Holdings is a cloud-based AI lending platform.
MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK: Horn Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matrix Medical
Network of Arizona LLC, et al. The case is styled as William Horn,
individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Matrix Medical Network of Arizona LLC, Superior Healthplan
Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-00482-SMB (D. Ariz., March 28,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Matrix Medical Network -- https://matrixmedicalnetwork.com/ --
provides expert care and health services to millions of at-risk
individuals where they live and work.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy L. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC
30 E Butler Pike
Ambler, PA 19002
Phone: (215) 540-8888
Fax: (877) 788-2864
Email: Efilings@ginsburglawgroup.com
MDG USA INC: Danzy Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tyisha Danzy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MDG USA Inc., Case No. 22CV007409, was
removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 25,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01923-DMR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending.
MDG -- https://secure.mdg.com/ -- offers customers brand name
electronics, televisions, computers, appliances, furniture and
mattresses at competitive prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James T. Hannink, Esq.
Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
DOSTART HANNINK AND COVENEY
4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
La Jolla, CA 92037-1474
Phone: (858) 623-4230
Email: jhannink@sdlaw.com
zdostart@sdlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan Theonugraha, Esq.
Jeremy Michael McLaughlin, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Phone: (415) 882-8230
Fax: (415) 882-8220
Email: jonathan.theonugraha@klgates.com
jeremy.mclaughlin@klgates.com
MDL 2382: Hale Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeff Hale, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in IN RE: EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. WET/DRY VAC MARKETING AND
SALES LITIGATION, MDL No. 4:12-md-02382-HEA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.
This multi-district litigation arises out of allegedly deceptive
advertising associated with RIDGID brand vacuums. Emerson, a
Missouri corporation, manufactures, markets, and sells RIDGID
vacuums. It makes all marketing decisions regarding the vacuums in
Missouri. Emerson markets the vacuums by emphasizing their "peak
horsepower" -- the maximum potential output of the vacuums' motors.
Emerson acknowledges that the vacuums can only achieve "peak
horsepower" in a laboratory. A consumer using a standard wall
outlet would achieve less horsepower than advertised.
The Plaintiffs allege advertising based on peak horsepower is
misleading and brought claims for violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of other
states' consumer protection laws, and redhibition (on behalf of a
Louisiana sub-class).
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the case to
the district court as a consolidated action and the district court
oversaw discovery. At the close of discovery, the Plaintiffs sought
to certify a nationwide class. The district court applied Missouri
choice of law rules and determined that all claims should be
governed by Missouri law. It then certified the class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Emerson appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit reversed the decision of the district
court certifying a nationwide class action, and remanded for
further proceedings.
On March 7, 2022, District Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an
order denying Plaintiffs' oral motion to reconsider the Opinion,
Memorandum and Order which granted Motions to Exclude Plaintiffs'
experts, Stefan Boedeker and Laurence Nagel. Judge Autrey also
denied their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Jeff Hale, et al., v. Emerson
Electric Company, Case No. 22-8005, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 22, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Jeff Hale, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; Raymond Gray, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated; Andrew Bowers, Emilio Gonzales, and
Kenneth Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated; Eric Shults and Justin Swires, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; Estaban Maravilla, individually
and on behalf of all others; Lauren Checki, Chad Venhaus, Kevin
Brees, Chris Willis, and Fred Wilmer, are represented by:
Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
NEBLETT & BEARD
2220 Bonaventure Court
P.O. Box 12120
Alexandria, LA 71315
Telephone: (318) 561-2598
- and -
Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
Eric D. Holland, Esq.
HOLLAND LAW FIRM
211 N. Broadway, Suite 2625
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 241-8111
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN & SEDRAN
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
- and -
Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
John G. Simon, Esq.
Paul J. Tahan, Esq.
SIMON LAW FIRM
800 Market Street, Suite 1700
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-2929
Defendant-Respondent Emerson Electric Company is represented by:
Mark G. Arnold, Esq.
7397 Pershing
Saint Louis, MO 63130
Telephone: (314) 805-0613
- and -
James F. Bennett, Esq.
Hannah Fleener Preston, Esq.
DOWD & BENNETT
7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900
Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
Telephone: (314) 889-7300
- and -
Matthew R. Grant, Esq.
Joseph C. Orlet, Esq.
HUSCH & BLACKWELL
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441
Telephone: (314) 480-1500
MERRILL & LYNCH: Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valelly v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
modifying of briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification as follows:
Current Proposed New
Deadline Deadline
Opposition to April 1, 2022 May 3, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification
Reply in Support April 15, 2022 June 7, 2022
of Motion for
Class Certification
The Court previously set a briefing schedule on the Motion, which
directed Plaintiff to serve her Motion on March 4, 2022 and set a
tentative deadline for Merrill Lynch's response on April 1, 2022:
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by March 4,
2022. If, after Plaintiff files her motion, Defendant
believes it needs expert discovery in order to respond,
the Defendant should notify the Court. Otherwise, the
Defendant's opposition is due April 1, 2022, and Plaintiff's
reply is due April 15, 2022.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35anRJ3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lara Samet Buchwald, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
Telephone: (212) 450-4351
lara.buchwald@davispolk.com
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
E-mail: davispolk.com
METLIFE INC: Parchmann Shareholder Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Metlife Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that the case captioned
"Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et. al." (February 5, 2018, E.D. N.Y.)
was dismissed
The plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who purchased
MetLife, Inc. common stock from February 27, 2013 through January
29, 2018 alleging that MetLife, Inc., its former Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board, and its former Chief Financial
Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and/or
misleading financial statements. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's
practices and procedures for estimating reserves for certain group
annuity benefits were inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate
internal control over financial reporting. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
On January 11, 2021, the court granted MetLife's motion to dismiss
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
MetLife is provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits and
asset management holding leading market positions in the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Suit Over Late Fees Pending in Texas Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, 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 17, 2022, that two
separate putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company in 2016 and 2017.
The lawsuits both relate to purported violations of a late-fee
statute in the state of Texas. In 2018, the District Court granted
the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and class
certification. The Company appealed the class certifications to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued its opinions finding error in the District Court's
analysis of the Texas late-fee statute and remanding the lawsuits
to the District Court to determine if class certifications are
appropriate in light of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals'
ruling.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. operates, acquires and
selectively develops apartment communities.
MISFITS MARKET: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Misfits Market, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Misfits Market, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02523 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Misfits Market -- https://www.misfitsmarket.com/ -- is a provider
of subscription box service used to reduce the waste of food.[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
MONQ LLC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monq, LLC. The case
is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Monq, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02472
(S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MONQ -- https://monq.com/ -- uses 100% naturally extracted and
organic essential oils, harvested from eco-friendly farms across
the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MURPHY'S MAGIC SUPPLIES: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murphy's Magic
Supplies. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Murphy's Magic
Supplies, Case No. 1:22-cv-02464 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Murphy's Magic Supplies -- https://www.murphysmagic.com/ -- is the
world's largest wholesaler of magic supplies,.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
NAKED GALLERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Buehler Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BUEHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAKED GALLERY, INC; ZACHARY A. MOORE; and
CORY PROCTOR, Defendants, Case No 2:22-cv-01956 (Cal. Sup., Los
Angeles Cty., March 24, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Buehler was employed by the Defendants as production crew
member.
NAKED GALLERY, INC. is a movie production company. The company
offers motion picture production, and music videos. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
David Garrett, Esq.
Min Ji Gal, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
Glendale CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
mgal@harrisandruble.com
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Chen Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Department of
Assessment of the County of Nassau. The case is styled as Zhonghui
Chen, Shi Shi Wang, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. Department of Assessment of the
County of Nassau, Respondent, Case No. 603652/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Nassau Cty., March 24, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
The Department of Assessment --
https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/1501/Assessment -- is responsible
for developing fair and equitable assessments for all residential
and commercial properties in Nassau County.[BN]
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YMCA: Jackson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Council of
Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States of America
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Willie Lee Jackson, Jr.,
Julia Tolbert-Jackson, husband and wife, individually, as guardian
and next friend to WTJ and SR, minor children, collectively, and on
behalf of other minor children and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Council of Young Mens Christian
Associations of the United States of America Corporation; National
Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States
of America d/b/a YMCA of the USA, d/b/a YMCA of Birmingham; Kevin
Washington; Luis Lozada; World Alliance of YMCAs; Fairfax Financial
Holdings Limited d/b/a Crum & Forster Holdings Corp, d/b/a The
United States Fire Inc Co; The Redwoods Group, a Crum & Forster
Company; Beth Cooper; R Scott Bricker; Kevin A Trapani; Greg
Pontes; Integrated Claims Solutions; Rosemary Cubbedge; Aetna Inc;
Aetna Health Inc, a NJ Corp, d/b/a Aetna Health LaQuinta ERISA
Self-Funded Ins Healthcare Plan; Aetna Healthcare Ins Co; Aetna
Life Ins Co; The Rawlings Company; Shannon Heitzman; Victoria Peek;
Alex Gram; Adrienne W Kim; Patrick Ellis; Larry Nelson; JHTNA Corp,
Johnson Health Tech North America, d/b/a JHTNA Manufacturing LLC;
Matrix Fitness USA; Northland Industries Incorp; Magnum Fitness
System; Case No. 2:22-cv-00388-ACA (N.D. Ala., March 25, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
National Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United
States of America Corporation -- http://www.ymca.org/-- is a
venerable not-for-profit community service organization, YMCA of
the USA (Y-USA) assists the more than 2,700 individual YMCAs across
the country and represents them on both national and international
levels.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
OCWEN LOAN: Settlement in Franklin Suit Wins Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY FRANKLIN, v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting the plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement as
follows:
-- Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Court conditionally certifies, for
settlement purposes only, the following class:
"All persons in California whose cellular telephone
conversation on at least one outgoing call from Defendant
was recorded by Defendant and/or its agent/s without that
person’s consent between November 1, 2015 and November 30,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period");"
Excluded from the Class are: (i) individuals who are or
were during the Class Period officers or directors of
Defendant in the Litigation or any of its respective
Affiliates; (ii) the District Judge and any Magistrate
Judge assigned to the case, their spouses, and persons
within the third degree of relationship to either of them,
or the spouses of such persons; and (iii) all persons who
file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the
Class.
-- The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff
Gregory Franklin as representative for the claims against
Ocwen.
-- The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Abbas
Kazerounian, Jason A. Ibey, and Ryan L. McBride of the law
firm of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, as "Class Counsel."
-- The Court approves Simpluris, Inc. as the Claims
Administrator to perform duties in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.
-- The Court finds that the procedures for notifying the Class
about the settlement as 7 in the Settlement Agreement and
Class Notice provide the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and therefore meet the requirements of due
process, and directs the mailing of the Class Notice and
the attachments thereto in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement.
-- Provided that the changes to the objection process are
implemented, the Court approves, as to form and content,
the proposed Class Notice and associated forms. The Claims
Administrator is authorized to mail those documents after
they are updated to the Class Action members as provided in
the Settlement Agreement.
The Court hereby directs plaintiff, defendant, and the
Administrator to complete all aspects of the Class Notice
no later than April 15, 2022.
Ocwen Loan provides mortgage loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LiJJkV at no extra charge.[CC]
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Faces Setzer Suit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, 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 17, 2022, that a
class action was filed against the company alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert
O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, are defendants in a purported
securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
Brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff
Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purports to assert
claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest,
fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.
The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated
the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading
statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about
the company's business, operations, and prospects, including the
financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators,
the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the
impairment of certain of the company's leases and the
un-collectability of certain receivables.
The initial complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S
District Court, but the dismissal was overturned by the U.S Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2020. Thereafter, the
plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in August
2020. In November 2020, the company and the officers named in the
Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.
On September 28, 2021, the Court issued an order denying the motion
to dismiss insofar as it requested dismissal of the entire action
on grounds of loss causation, and granting it insofar as it sought
dismissal of any claims arising out of defendants' statements in
February 2017. Because the dismissed claims were the basis for
defendants' efforts to begin the alleged class period in February
2017, the decision means that the alleged class period runs from
May 3, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is into real estate investment
trusts based in Maryland.
PBF ENERGY: Faces Goldstein Suit Over Refinery Mishap
-----------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 17, 2022, that a class action was
filed against the company and its subsidiaries alleging negligence,
strict liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private
nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public
nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from
electrostatic precipitator explosion.
On February 17, 2017, in "Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al.," the company and PBF LLC, and its
subsidiaries, PBF Western Region and Torrance Refining and the
manager of the company's Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil
were named as defendants in a class action and representative
action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas,
Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the
ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef. On October 15, 2019, the judge
granted certification to two limited classes of property owners
with Youssef as the sole class representative and named plaintiff,
rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on negligence and on
strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions. On February 5, 2021,
the defendants' motion for Limited Extension of Discovery Cut-Off
and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint were heard by the court. On May 5, 2021, the Court
granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint for the third
time to substitute Navarro for Youssef.
On May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint
("TAC") that contained significant changes and new claims,
including individual claims, that were not included in the motion
for leave to amend plaintiffs presented to the Court. On June 9,
2021, we filed a Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC.
On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Strike, to which the defendants filed
their reply on July 2, 2021. A hearing on the Motion to
Dismiss/Strike the TAC was held on August 2, 2021 and the court
ordered that the TAC be struck and that the parties meet and confer
with respect to the complaint. After meeting and conferring,
plaintiffs agreed to submit a corrected TAC with changes reflecting
the removal of Youssef and the substitution of Navarro as the named
Plaintiff.
On August 23, 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to
take Navarro's deposition on September 23, 2021. Also, on August
23, 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to continue
the pretrial dates with the new deadlines. On October 8, 2021,
plaintiffs filed their Motion to Appoint Navarro as Class
Representative. On October 29, 2021, the company filed its
opposition to this motion. On November 15, 2021, plaintiffs filed
their reply. On February 8, 2022, the Court held a hearing on
plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Navarro as Class Representative but
did not act on the motion. Instead, the court ordered the parties
to submit draft orders for the Court's consideration. All other
dates are stayed pending the Court issuing its order.
PBF Energy Inc. is an independent petroleum refiners and suppliers
based in New Jersey.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settlement Reached in Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that in August 3,
2021, PPC and the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiff Class (CIIPP) reached an agreement to settle
all claims, which is subject to approval by the Illinois Court. The
Illinois Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
January 14, 2022 and a final approval hearing is scheduled for
April 18, 2022.
Under the terms of these settlements, PPC has agreed to pay the
CIIPPs an amount of $45.0 million to release all outstanding claims
brought by the class.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is primarily engaged in the production,
processing, marketing and distribution of fresh, frozen and
value-added chicken and pork products to retailers, distributors
and foodservice operators.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Dispute with Direct Purchasers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on January
11, 2021, PPC announced that it had entered into an agreement to
settle all claims made by a putative class of plaintiffs who have
filed on behalf of direct purchasers.
Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as "In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation," Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against PPC and other defendants by and on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of
antitrust and unfair competition laws.
The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an
alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase
prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present. The putative class plaintiffs have filed three
consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers
(DPP) and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers.
Between December 8, 2017 and September 1, 2021, 82 individual
direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by
individual purchaser entities (DAP) naming PPC as a defendant, the
allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action
complaints. Subsequent amendments to certain complaints added
allegations of price fixing and bid rigging on certain sales.
On June 17, 2021, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling
order through trial, under which merits fact discovery for
defendants and most plaintiffs closed on July 31, 2021, with
additional discovery of subsequent DAPs proceeding in six month
increments following consolidation of each DAP complaint. On
February 8, 2022, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling
order for certain plaintiffs who limited their claims to reduction
of output, which sets the first trial date in the fall 2023. The
schedule for the rest of the plaintiffs is still awaiting an order
from the Illinois Court.
On January 11, 2021, PPC announced that it had entered into an
agreement to settle all claims made by the DPPs. The Illinois Court
granted final approval of the settlement on June 29, 2021. As a
result of this agreement PPC recorded an expense of $75.0 million
in Selling, general and administrative expense in the Consolidated
Statement of Income during the year ended December 27, 2020.
Pursuant to this agreement, PPC paid the DPPs this amount during
the three months ended March 28, 2021.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is primarily engaged in the production,
processing, marketing and distribution of fresh, frozen and
value-added chicken and pork products to retailers, distributors
and foodservice operators.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Row with End-User/Indirect Purchaser Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on July 28,
2021, PPC and the putative End-User Consumer Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiff Class (EUCP) reached an agreement to settle all claims.
The Illinois Court granted final approval of the settlement on
December 20, 2021.
Under the terms of these settlements, PPC paid the EUCPs an amount
of $75.5 million to release all outstanding claims brought by the
class.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is primarily engaged in the production,
processing, marketing and distribution of fresh, frozen and
value-added chicken and pork products to retailers, distributors
and foodservice operators.
POLARIS PRECISION: Jordan FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTONY JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. POLARIS PRECISION TUBULAR SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00218, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas on March 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 6:22-cv-00106-JCB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Polaris Precision Tubular Services, LLC is a contractor for tubular
manufacturers, with its principal place of business in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
PORTLAND GENERAL: Cannataro Action Pending in Oregon Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that
during September and October 2020, three putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned
"Cannataro v. Portland General Electric Co.," Case No.
3:20-cv-01583.
Portland General Electric Company, a vertically-integrated electric
utility with corporate headquarters located in Portland, Oregon.
PORTLAND GENERAL: Employees' Fund Suit Pending in Oregon Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that
during September and October 2020, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned "Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General
Electric Co.," Case No. 20-cv-01786.
Portland General Electric Company, a vertically-integrated electric
utility with corporate headquarters located in Portland, Oregon.
PORTLAND GENERAL: Hessel Class Suit Pending in Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that
during September and October 2020, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned "Hessel
v. Portland General Electric Co.," Case No. 20-cv-01523.
Portland General Electric Company, a vertically-integrated electric
utility with corporate headquarters located in Portland, Oregon.
PPL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Suit Over Clean Air Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that it is facing
a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act,
RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence.
In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed said complaint. In July 2014, the U.S.
District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air
Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort claims. In
February 2017, the U.S. District Court dismissed PPL as a defendant
and dismissed the final federal claim against LG&E, and in April
2017, issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction on the state law claims dismissing the case in its
entirety.
In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims. The
plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant. On
January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order
denying the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On January
14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky
Court of Appeals. On December 11, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued
an order affirming the lower court's denial of class certification.
In December 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for discretionary
review with the Kentucky Supreme Court. On April 20, 2021, the
Kentucky Supreme Court denied further review of the lower court
order. The case was remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for the
claims of the three remaining petitioners. Settlements with two of
the three remaining petitioners were reached with none of the
settlements having or expected to have a significant impact on
LG&E's operations or financial condition.
PPL is a utility holding company, incorporated in 1994, in
connection with the deregulation of electricity generation in
Pennsylvania.
PPL ELECTRIC: Talen Montana Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that it is facing
a class action complaint captioned "Talen Montana Retirement Plan
and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PPL Corporation et al" filed in
October 29, 2018.
Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing filed said
complaint on behalf of current and contingent creditors of Talen
Montana who allegedly suffered harm or allegedly will suffer
reasonably foreseeable harm as a result of the November 2014
distribution of proceeds from the sale of then-PPL Montana's
hydroelectric generating facilities.
The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors. Plaintiff
asserts claims for, among other things, fraudulent transfer, both
actual and constructive, recovery against subsequent transferees,
civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting tortious conduct and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff is seeking avoidance of the purportedly
fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including punitive
damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief.
In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division. In January 2019, the plaintiff moved to remand the Talen
Putative Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without
prejudice all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the
case.
In September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiff's motion
to remand the case back to state court. Although, the PPL
defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant
an appeal of the remand decision, in November 2019, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request and in December 2019,
Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended Complaint in
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud
County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing as a plaintiff.
In January 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of the below mentioned Delaware
Action. The Court held a hearing on June 24, 2020 regarding the
motions. On September 11, 2020, the Court granted PPL defendants'
alternative Motion for a Stay of the proceedings.
PPL is a utility holding company, incorporated in 1994, in
connection with the deregulation of electricity generation in
Pennsylvania.
REDFIN CORP: Bell Labor Suit for Arbitration
--------------------------------------------
Redfin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that an arbitration
demand was filed by the plaintiff after the court granted the
company's motion to compel arbitration on non-PAGA claims.
On November 20, 2020, Jason Bell, who is one of the company's
former lead agents as well as a former associate agent, filed a
complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. The complaint is pled as a class
action and alleges that, (1) during the time he served as an
associate agent, the company misclassified him as an independent
contractor instead of an employee and (2) during the time he served
as a lead agent, the company misclassified him as an employee who
was exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws.
The plaintiff also asserts representative claims under California's
Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified amounts of unpaid overtime wages, regular wages, meal
and rest period compensation, waiting time and other penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief, and plaintiff's attorneys'
fees and costs.
On August 12, 2021, the court granted the company's motion to
compel arbitration on the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims and stayed
the plaintiff's PAGA claims pending resolution of the arbitration.
Following the court's grant, the plaintiff filed an arbitration
demand.
Redfin Corporation is a residential real estate brokerage based in
Seattle.
REDFIN CORP: Faces Labor Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
Redfin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the company was
named defendant in a class lawsuit alleging that they misclassified
the plaintiff as an independent contractor instead of an employee.
On August 28, 2019, Devin Cook, who is one of the company's former
independent contractor licensed sales associates, whom it calls
associate agents, filed a complaint against the company in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.
The plaintiff initially pled the complaint as a class action and
alleged that the company misclassified her as an independent
contractor instead of an employee. The plaintiff also sought
representative claims under California's Private Attorney General
Act.
On January 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
dismissing her class action claim and asserting only claims under
PAGA. On September 24, 2021, the court denied the company's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims
under PAGA, holding that at this stage of the proceeding, the
company had not proved that the company properly classified
associate agents as independent contractors under California law.
The plaintiff continues to seek unspecified penalties for alleged
violations of PAGA.
Redfin Corporation is a residential real estate brokerage based in
Seattle.
RYDER SYSTEM: Faces Securities Suit in S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------
Ryder System, 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 17, 2022, that it is facing a
putative class action filed in May 20, 2020 on behalf of purchasers
of securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities
between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020. The case was commenced
against Ryder and certain of the company's current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, captioned "Key West Policy & Fire Pension Fund v. Ryder
System, Inc., et al."
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented Ryder's depreciation policy and residual value
estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.
On August 3, 2020, the State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, the
City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, and
the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund were appointed
lead plaintiffs. On October 5, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. On December 4, 2020, Ryder and the other named
defendants in the case filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint. On April 7, 2021, the court held a hearing on
defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and reserved decision.
Ryder System, Inc. is a leading logistics and transportation
company based in Florida.
SAM'S WEST: Class Certification Filing Continued to April 11
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated,
v. SAM'S WEST, INC. dba SAM'S CLUB, an Arkansas corporation, Case
No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V.
Wilson entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue
class certification filing deadline in light of unforeseen delays
in Belaire process.
The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification is continued to April 11, 2022, says Judge Wilson.
Sam's West provides merchandise and services for business owners
and consumers. The Company offers refrigeration equipment, drink
and beverage machines.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qGvbng at no extra charge.[CC]
SCWORX CORP: Settlement in Yannes Suit for Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
SCWorx Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the earliest
event reported on February 11, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the class action
settlement for "Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel"
has been submitted for preliminary approval.
On April 29, May 27 and June 23, 2020, a series of securities class
action cases were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Company and the Company's
former CEO. These three class actions were consolidated on
September 18, 2020 and Daniel Yannes was designated lead plaintiff.
A consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October 19, 2020. The
consolidated action was captioned "Daniel Yannes, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. SCWorx Corp. and
Marc S. Schessel."
On February 11, 2022, the Company and Mr. Schessel entered into a
definitive settlement agreement with the Plaintiff, which settles
all claims raised in the litigation. As stated on December 20,
2021, and under the terms of the Class Action Settlement, the
insurers for the Company and Schessel will make a cash payment to
the Plaintiff and the Company will issue $600,000 worth of common
stock to the class Plaintiffs, in exchange for which all parties
will be released from all claims related to the securities class
action litigation. This Class Action Settlement has been submitted
to the court for preliminary approval.
SCWorx Corp. is into miscellaneous amusement & recreation services
based in New York.
SENSIENT NATURAL: Bryan Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on May 20,
2021 a Request for Dismissal without prejudice was filed by a
certain Julie Bryan with regards to its a class action complaint
against its affiliate Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) that
she initially filed in June 15, 2020.
Bryan worked at SNI through a temporary staffing agency in early
2020. The notice states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of
Ms. Bryan as well as other alleged aggrieved employees, identified
as all current and former hourly or non-exempt employees of SNI,
whether hired directly or through staffing agencies or labor
contractors. The notice alleges that SNI failed to properly pay Ms.
Bryan and the other alleged aggrieved employees for all hours
worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and
overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue
compliant wage statements, and failed to reimburse for all
necessary business-related expenses, in violation of the California
Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.
On August 19, 2020, Ms. Bryan filed a Complaint in Merced County
Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in her PAGA notice.
SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and the parties
entered the discovery phase of the case. On May 20, 2021, however,
Ms. Bryan filed a Request for Dismissal of her action, without
prejudice.
Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and
marketer of colors, flavors, and other specialty ingredients.
SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Agar Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that its
affiliate Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) is facing a class
action complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court filed in March
29, 2019, by Calvin Agar, a former employee.
On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a first amended class action complaint
against SNI alleging that its improperly reported overtime pay on
employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor
Code. The complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which
concern the wage statements, challenging the manner in which SNI
has reported overtime pay on its wage statements.
SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its
wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or
any specific guidance from California decisional law, the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the
California Labor Commissioner’s Office.
Finally, SNI contended that certain of the state law claims are
subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed its Answer
and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on July 10, 2019. The
parties participated in an early mediation in the case in December
2019, which was not successful.
On March 17, 2020, the court granted Agar leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted
was subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed a
Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal of the
remaining claim, on May 1, 2020. The Court overruled the Demurrer
on September 1, 2020. SNI requested discretionary appellate review
of this decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California,
Fifth Appellate District granted SNI's application on February 19,
2021 and ordered briefing by the parties. Discovery is currently
stayed in the matter pending the outcome of appellate review. SNI
continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this issue.
SNI intends to continue to vigorously defend its interests, absent
a reasonable resolution.
Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and
marketer of colors, flavors, and other specialty ingredients.
SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on June 10,
2021, a certain Sofia Rodriguez, an employee of its affiliate
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) pursued a claim, through
counsel, on a representative basis on behalf of all other alleged
aggrieved employees, identified as all current and former hourly or
non-exempt employees of SNI, whether hired directly or through
staffing agencies.
Rodriguez filed notice with the State of California of the intent
to pursue a claim on a representative basis. Rodriguez worked at
SNI through One Source Staffing Solutions, Inc. for five months in
2020. The notice states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of
Ms. Rodriguez as well as other alleged aggrieved employees,
identified as all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in
the State of California, and who were paid on an hourly basis. The
notice alleges that SNI failed to allow Ms. Rodriguez and the other
alleged aggrieved employees to take statutorily required meal and
rest periods. The notice further alleges that Defendants suffered
and permitted Ms. Rodriguez and other alleged aggrieved employees
to work off the clock, failed to pay for all hours worked, failed
to properly provide or compensate for minimum and overtime wages,
failed to issue compliant wage statements, and failed to pay wages
owed upon termination of employment, in violation of the California
Labor Code. Ms. Rodriguez also asserts that she was taken off the
schedule and not returned to work after complaining about the
alleged wage and hour violations set forth in the PAGA notice.
On August 17, 2021, Ms. Rodriguez filed a Complaint in Stanislaus
County Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in her PAGA
notice. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response.
Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and
marketer of colors, flavors, and other specialty ingredients.
SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Walters Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on April 26,
2021, a certain Patrick Walters, an employee of its affiliate
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) pursued a claim, through
counsel.
The notice alleges that SNI failed to properly pay Mr. Walters and
the other alleged aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed
to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and
for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage
statements, and failed to reimburse for all necessary
business-related expenses, in violation of the California Labor
Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.
On July 30, 2021, Mr. Walters filed a complaint in Merced County
Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in his PAGA notice.
SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response.
Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and
marketer of colors, flavors, and other specialty ingredients.
SLIMFAST FOODS: Faces Brand Suit Over Mislabeled Snack Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
KASAMA BRAND, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SLIMFAST FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00392-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 24, 2022), alleges that the
Defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, sold
goods under false pretenses, and defrauded its customers over the
Defendant's chocolate snack cups under the brand name "Keto Fat
Bomb", and ketogenic snack gels under the brand name "Keto Fat Bomb
Shot" (the "Products").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, since the Products do
not meet the regulatory definition of low-or reduced-calorie foods,
federal regulations require the Defendant to make a disclaimer that
the Products are not for weight control, or the like. But the
Products' labels do not contain the required disclaimer, which
would provide material facts to give consumers the full picture
about these Products' "zero added sugar" or "zero sugar" claim.
The alleged failure to include this disclaimer make the labels'
claims false, deceptive, inaccurate, and misleading, and the
labels, and Defendants' advertising, violate federal and state laws
and regulations requiring accuracy in nutritional labels. The
Plaintiff purchased the Products in reliance on the Defendant's
marketing claims, and especially on the deceptive and misleading
implication that these Products were low-calorie foods.
SLIM-FAST FOODS COMPANY manufactures and retails food products. The
Company provides breakfast and lunch bars, meal bars, powder, shake
mixes, and snacks. Slim-Fast Foods serves customers throughout the
United states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858)414-7465
Facsimile: (858)300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
TEXTRON INC: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended January 1, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2022, that the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals unanimously upheld dismissal of most of a second amended
complaint for a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court in the Southern District of New
York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer and remanding that remaining portion
back to the District Court.
On August 22, 2019, a suit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund
of Western Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the
Arctic Cat acquisition and integration. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages. On November 12, 2019, the Court
appointed IWA Forest Industry Pension Fund (IWA) as the sole lead
plaintiff in the case.
On December 24, 2019, IWA filed an Amended Complaint in the now
entitled In re Textron Inc. Securities Litigation. On February 14,
2020, IWA filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on March 6, 2020,
Textron filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On
July 20, 2020, the Court granted Textron's motion to dismiss and
closed the case. On August 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal contesting the dismissal, which Textron opposed.
On September 17, 2021, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed
the case, unanimously upholding dismissal of most of the Second
Amended Complaint, but reversing dismissal of one aspect of the
Second Amended Complaint and remanding that remaining portion back
to the District Court for further proceedings.
Textron Inc. is a multi-industry company into a network of
aircraft, defense, industrial and finance businesses based in Rhode
Island.
TRUSTMARK CORP: Suit Over Illegal Fees Remanded to S.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the remand of a
class action filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas by
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven
Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming
Trustmark National Bank (TNB), a subsidiary of the company, and
four other financial institutions and one individual, was approved
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and is effective
as of January 28, 2022.
On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed to
recover alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in
the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from
entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford and damages allegedly
attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the
defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or
aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or
should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an
illegal and fraudulent scheme.
In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas), where multiple Stanford related matters
have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and
approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee
(OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under
certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of
Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to
intervene in this action, which was granted in December 2012. The
OSIC initially sought to recover from TNB and the other defendant
financial institutions: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages.
In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline
for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.
In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the
OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims. The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.
On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy. On July 14, 2015, the defendants
(including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC and to reconsider
the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims against TNB and the other financial
institutions that are defendants in the action. On July 27, 2016,
the court denied the motion by TNB and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied the
motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to
reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On August 24, 2016, TNB
filed its answer to the SAC. On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a
motion seeking an order lifting the discovery stay and establishing
a trial schedule. On November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First
Amended Intervenor Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding,
abetting or participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act
and (ii) aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of
fiduciary duty. On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class
Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification and designation of
class representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of
fact did not predominate. The court granted the OSIC's motion to
lift the discovery stay that it had previously ordered.
On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to
intervene in the action. On September 18, 2019, the court denied
the motions to intervene. On October 14, 2019, certain of the
proposed intervenors filed a notice of appeal. On February 3, 2021,
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the
motions to intervene; this decision was affirmed by a panel of the
Fifth Circuit on March 12, 2021.
On February 12, 2021, all defendants (including TNB) filed a motion
for summary judgment with respect to OSIC claims that applied to
all defendants. In addition, on the same date, TNB filed a separate
motion for summary judgment with respect to aspects of OSIC claims
that applied specifically to TNB. On March 19, 2021, OSIC filed
notice with the court that it was abandoning as against all of the
defendants (including TNB) certain of the claims previously set
forth in the SAC. As a result, only the claims for (i) aiding,
abetting and participating in breaches of fiduciary duty, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, and (iii) punitive damages remain as against TNB.
On January 20, 2022, the court denied TNB's motion for summary
judgment, as well as the motion for summary judgment filed by all
defendants (including TNB) with respect to OSIC claims that apply
to all defendants.
The parties to the action have agreed that the case is to be tried
in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On March
25, 2021, the judge to whom the case is currently assigned in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas rescinded his
previously-issued trial scheduling orders so that the Southern
District of Texas could set scheduling for this case once the case
has in fact been remanded. On January 19, 2022, the judge of the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas to whom the case
is currently assigned issued a recommendation to the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (the Panel) that the case be remanded
to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas in light
of that judge's determination with respect to the summary judgment
motions that triable issues of fact exist. On January 21, 2022, the
Panel approved the remand of the case to the District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, subject to a seven-day stay to allow
for any objections to the remand to be filed. On January 28, 2022,
with no objections having been filed, the Panel lifted the stay,
and the remand of the case became effective.
Trustmark Corporation operates as a financial services organization
providing banking and other financial solutions based in
Mississippi.
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits in D.C. Court
----------------------------------------------------
United Airlines Holdings, Inc. (UAL) disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that
beginning in July 1, 2015, UAL and United were named as defendants
in multiple class action lawsuits that asserted claims under the
Sherman Antitrust Act, which have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints
generally allege collusion among U.S. airlines on capacity
impacting airfares and seek treble damages.
United Airlines Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and its
principal, wholly-owned subsidiary is United Airlines, Inc. with a
comprehensive route network among North American carriers,
including U.S. mainland hubs in Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los
Angeles, New York/Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Deadline on Class Cert Bid Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIR FORCE OFFICER, v.
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, individually and in his official capacity as
Secretary of Defense; FRANK KENDALL, III, individually and in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and ROBERT I.
MILLER, individually and in his official capacity as Surgeon
General of the Air Force, Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES (M.D. Ga.),
the Defendants ask the Court to stay:
(1) The Defendants' deadline to answer Amended Complaint,
(2) The Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion
to Certify Class, and
(3) The Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction.
The Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint, Motion to Certify Class,
and Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction on February 28,
2022.
By Plaintiff's own admission, any response to her Motion to Certify
Class and Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction will require
extensive investigation into more than 8,200 service members'
requests for religious exemption from the Air Force's COVID-19
vaccine requirement. And yet, the Plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue class-wide preliminary injunctive relief. Thus, given
Plaintiff's improperly filed Amended Complaint, and Defendants'
bona fide challenge to Plaintiff's standing to pursue such class
certification and class-wide preliminary injunctive relief -- and,
importantly, to conserve
valuable resources for the Court and parties – the Defendants
request that the Court stay Defendants' upcoming deadlines.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JKFz4J at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lance Simon, Esq.
Roger C. Grantham, Jr.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
P. O. Box 1702
Macon, GA 31202
Telephone: (478) 621-2663
Facsimile: (478) 621-2737
E-mail: Lance.Simon@usdoj.gov
Roger.Grantham@usdoj.gov
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Faine Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONTE FAINE, Individually
and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL
LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00524-PAB-KLM (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) Certifying this case as a class action pursuant to
F.R.C.P. 23;
(2) Directing that within 14 days of the Court's
Certification Order, Estes shall produce a class list
containing the names, dates of employment, mail and e-
mail addresses, and phone numbers of the following Class
Members: all regular full-time and/or part time L2L
drivers in Colorado who did not cross state lines during
their deliveries from March 16, 2020 to December 31, 2020
and worked overtime and/or more than 2 hours on any work
shift;
(3) Appointing Donte Faine, as the Class Representative;
(4) Appointing David H. Miller and Victoria E. Guzman of the
Sawaya & Miller Law Firm as Class Counsel;
(5) Approving the Notice and Opt-Out forms;
(6) Approving the following notice procedures: (a) Within 14
days of receipt of the class list, Class Counsel shall
send the approved notice forms via U.S. Mail, electronic
mail, and text message; (b) Class Members shall have 60
days to opt-out of the Class if they choose to do so; and
(c) Class Counsel shall conduct skip-tracing and other
reasonable efforts to locate, communicate with, and
provide the Notices to any Class Members whose Notice
Forms are returned undeliverable; and
(7) Granting such other relief the Court deems just and
proper.
Universal Logistics is a full-service provider of customized
transportation and logistics solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wDpHgR
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
Victoria E. Guzman, Esq.
THE SAWAYA LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden St.
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 839-1650
Facsimile: (303) 832-7102
E-mail: dhmiller@sawayalaw.com
vguzman@sawayalaw.com
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Crumrine Shareholder Suit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 17, 2022, that a class action complaint was
filed against Vivint Solar, Inc., a company acquired by Sunrun,
alleging violations of Federal Securities Laws.
In October 2019, two shareholders filed separate putative class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Crumrine v. Vivint Solar, Inc. and Li v. Vivint Solar, Inc.)
purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.
The lawsuits purport to allege violations of Federal Securities
Laws. In March 2020, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the alleged
putative class. Subsequently, in December 2020, the Eastern
District of New York transferred the actions to the District of
Utah, where they are now pending.
Vivint Solar disputes the allegations in the complaint. While
Vivint Solar believes that the claims against it are without merit,
in view of the cost and risk of continuing to defend the action,
Vivint Solar mediated the action with plaintiffs on May 19, 2021,
and reached an agreement to resolve the action on a class-wide
basis for $1.25 million. A portion of the $1.25 million will be
covered by insurance proceeds, and the Company accrued
approximately $750,000 as of June 30, 2021. As of December 31,
2021, the accrual was adjusted to $550,000, because of the portion
of the $1.25 million settlement that will be covered by insurance
proceeds. On November 30, 2021, the court granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.
The Company deposited its portion of the settlement proceeds into
an escrow account managed by the class action claims administrator
on January 27, 2022. The court has scheduled the final approval
hearing for May 5, 2022.
Sunrun, Inc. provides solar energy and storage and is based in
California.
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Dekker Class Action
----------------------------------------
Sunrun, 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 17, 2022, that a class action complaint was
filed against Vivint Solar, Inc., a company acquired by Sunrun,
alleging that agreements contain unlawful termination fee
provisions.
In December 2019, ten customers who signed residential power
purchase agreements named Vivint Solar in a putative class action
lawsuit captioned "Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc." (N.D. Cal.),
alleging that the agreements contain unlawful termination fee
provisions.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint. On January
17, 2020, the Company moved to compel arbitration with respect to
nine of the ten plaintiffs whose contracts included arbitration
provisions. The court issued an order compelling eight plaintiffs
to pursue their claims in arbitration but subsequently rescinded
the order as to certain plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has since reversed the
court's order rescinding its order compelling certain plaintiffs to
arbitrate. At this time, one plaintiff's claims remain pending
before the court as a putative class action, and other plaintiffs'
claims are in arbitration or have otherwise been resolved on an
individual basis. In the putative class action that remains pending
before the court, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, and Vivint Solar is opposing that motion and a
hearing is scheduled to be held on February 25, 2022.
Sunrun, Inc. provides solar energy and storage and is based in
California.
VVF INTERVEST: Robertson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON ROBERTSON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VVF INTERVEST, LLC, VVF KANSAS, LLC, & VVF KANSAS SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02507-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting conditional collective action
certification of the following three collectives:
-- Unlawful Rounding Policy Collective
"All persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants
in hourly positions who worked and clocked in and out on an
automated timeclock at any time from November 2, 2018 to
the present;"
-- Unlawful Workweek Manipulation Collective
"All persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants
in hourly positions who worked a shift that began on a
Saturday and ended on a Sunday during any workweek from
November 2, 2018 to the present;" and
-- Unlawful Deduction Policy Collective
"All persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants
in hourly positions whose hours worked were automatically
deducted for lunch breaks at any time from November 2, 2018
to the present."
On November 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the
Defendantsalleging that Defendants' policies, practices and/or
procedures have resulted in the willful, systemic underpayment of
straight time and overtime compensation due and owing to all
hourly, non-exempt, workers the Defendants employed within the
United States at its multiple facilities in Kansas, Illinois, and
Ohio in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
state law.
The Plaintiff alleges that VVF Intervest's policies, practices,
and/or procedures regarding three areas related to the payment of
wages result in three different ways in which all hourly,
non-exempt, employees are deprived of straight time and overtime
compensation due and owing pursuant to state and federal law.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that VVF Intervest's policies,
practices, and/or procedures unlawfully deduct compensable time
from Plaintiff and the putative class members' weekly hours worked,
resulting in a failure to pay all overtime compensation due and
owing. Specifically, Plaintiff and the putative class members are
automatically deducted each shift for a thirty-minute lunch break
regardless of whether they are actually able to take the break.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LlrhIs
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
OSMAN & SMAY LLC
7111 W. 151 st St., No. 316
Overland Park, Kansas 66223
Telephone: (913) 667-9243
Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
WALMART INC: Pretrial, Trial Deadlines Continued in Carr Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA CARR and LASHAWNA
WICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WALMART INC. a corporation, WALMART ASSOCIATES INC., a
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-01429-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
entered an order continuing pretrial and trial dates:
Trial and Final Pretrial Court Order
Conference Dates
-- Jury Trial (4-6 Days) Jan. 9, 2024
-- Final Pretrial Conference Dec. 15, 2023
("FPTC") [L.R. 16], Hearing
on Motions In Limine:
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 1, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial) July 28, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Sept. 21, 2023
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 6, 2023
-- Motion for Class Certification April 7, 2023
Hearing:
- Plaintiffs' Deadline to Jan. 20, 2023
File Motion for Class
Certification:
- Defendants' Deadline to Feb. 24, 2023
File Opposition:
- Plaintiffs' Deadline to March 17, 2023
File Reply:
-- Last Date to Hear Motions: Oct. 6, 2023
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36NPxDK at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONIKA NADINE CORA,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national association; WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00109-TJH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. granting approval of the terms of the Agreement as fair,
reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of the
settlement; the amount of distributions to class members;
and the amounts allocated to the enhancement payments and
attorney's fees and costs;
2. certifying for settlement purposes the Settlement Class
and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement
Collective described in the Agreement;
3. appointing the Plaintiff as representative for the
Settlement Class;
4. appointing Moon & Yang, APC as counsel for the Settlement
Class;
5. approving the use of Rust Consulting as the settlement
administrator;
6. authorizing distributions from the common fund; and
7. entering judgment on the terms specified in the Agreement
and approved by 22 the Court.
Wells Fargo operates as a bank.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iGanb3
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
XCENTRIC VENTURES: Selker Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARK SELKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC and DOES 1
through 300, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00005365-CU-BT-NC, was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on March 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00393-BEN-KSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unfair competition and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
arising out of its operation of the website www.ripoffreport.com.
Xcentric Ventures, LLC is a direct sales company based in Tempe,
Arizona. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bennett Evan Cooper, Esq.
Bradley A. Burns, Esq.
Amanda E. Newman, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 285-5000
Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
E-mail: bcooper@dickinsonwright.com
bburns@dickinsonwright.com
anewman@dickinsonwright.com
XEROX CORPORATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL VOLLMER and MARILYN
VOLLMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. XEROX CORPORATION, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR COMMITTEE, XEROX MEDICAL
CARE PLAN FOR. RETIRED EMPLOYEES, XEROX DENTAL CARE PLAN, and XEROX
CORPORATION, Case No. 6:20-cv-06979-CJS-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for joint
discovery plan as follows:
Motion for Class Certification April 8, 2022
deadline:
Response to Motion for Class May 23, 2022
Certification:
Reply to Response to Motion June 7, 2022
for Class Certification:
Xerox manufactures, sells and services office equipment and
furniture.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NkYfKv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tybe A. Brett, Esq.
Joel R Hurt, Esq.
429 Fourth Avenue
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE &
KRAVEC, LLC
Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
E-mail: tbrettififdpklaw.com
hurt@fdpklaw.com
- and -
David R. Pfalzgraf, Jr., Esq.
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
1600 Liberty Building
424 Main St.
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 854-3400
E-mail: miller@ruppbaase.com
pfalzgraggruppbaase.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
Joseph E. Clark, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 969-3000
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com
jclark@proskauer.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,097 Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its operating business segment,
Air & Liquid, has reported 6,097 and 5,891 total claims pending for
the years ended December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
(the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in
excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/36TUc7o
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has US$14.3MM Asbestos Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has reported losses and
loss adjustment expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021,
which included $44.3 million of net unfavorable loss reserve
development on prior accident years, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The unfavorable prior year loss development
was due to $20.7 million in run-off liability losses excluding
asbestos and environmental, $14.3 million in asbestos and
environmental lines and $9.3 million in risk management workers
compensation. The movement on liability exposures excluding
asbestos and environmental was due to analysis of individual
claims. The exposures driving the change were largely the result of
claims alleging abuse. A large portion of the change was due to
defense costs. The movement on asbestos and environmental lines was
due to higher than expected loss activity and movements on large
claims alleging environmental losses.
"Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the year ended December
31, 2020 included $11.5 million of net unfavorable loss reserve
development on prior accident years, of which $16.4 million was in
asbestos and environmental lines and $7.2 million in other run-off
lines, partially offset by $12.1 million of net favorable loss
reserve development on prior accident years in risk management
workers compensation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3uE9Lsa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Still Defends 151 PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., has been named a defendant in numerous
personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that
certain talc products they sold in the past were contaminated with
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Many of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos. As of December 31, 2021, there were 151 individual cases
pending against the Company. During the three months ended December
31, 2021, 19 new cases were filed and 20 cases were dismissed,
settled or otherwise resolved. The value of the settlements was not
material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the Company's
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2021.
Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's
talc products are reasonably anticipated.
"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and
will continue to do so. To date there have been no findings of
liability enforceable against the Company. However, nationwide
trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of
cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very
large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages. Given
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the
outcome of all individual cases pending against the Company, and we
are only able to make a specific estimate for a small number of
individual cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal
proceedings. For the remaining cases, we provide an estimate of
exposure on an aggregated and ongoing basis, which takes into
account the historical outcomes of all cases we have resolved to
date. Any accruals currently recorded on the Company’s balance
sheet with respect to these cases are not material. However, any
adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate,
could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we
expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though
some costs will be covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3wQlXsf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 45 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than
100 defendants. There remained approximately 45 pending asbestos
claims as of December 31, 2021. BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None
of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there
can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has
insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years
beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive
billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or
decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or
dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the
then-existing claims are revised. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020,
BNS Sub had accrued $1,466 and $1,349, respectively, relating to
the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes
the amount of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company
by the insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of
the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the
amounts funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the
number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience
to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to
significantly increase its estimated liability for the costs to
settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect
on the consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3NyeSCC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Reports $10.8MM Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity Group, LLC, as of December 31, 2021, has $10.8
million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and $11.2
million for environmental claims, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company's environmental exposure arises from the sale of
general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. Currently,
the Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental
contamination claims. However, in some states, the Company is
required, depending on the circumstances, to provide coverage for
certain bodily injury claims, such as an individual's exposure to a
release of chemicals. The Company has also issued policies that
were intended to provide limited pollution and environmental
coverage. These policies were specific to certain types of
products underwritten by the Company. The Company has also
received a number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of which
are declined based on well-established exclusions. In establishing
the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently
known and the current state of the law and coverage litigations.
Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and updated
continually.
Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for
asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency
period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the
resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for
individual claims, the increase in the volume of claims made by
plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no symptoms of
asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims subject to
coverage under general liability policies that do not contain
aggregate limits of liability.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/38frkHt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Faces 3,300 Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., as of December 31, 2021, has
reported 3,300 individual cases and 61 multiple-plaintiff cases
pending alleging actual or potential asbestos-related injuries
resulting from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by
Graybar, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against
us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne
virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation
and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability
with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the
continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that
could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed
against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these
claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in
federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement
amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Because
any of these factors may change, our future exposure is
unpredictable, and it is possible that we may incur costs that
would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial
position, or results of operations in future periods."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3ISQhVy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hamilton Beach Defends Product Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Beach Holding Co. and its subsidiary are involved in
various legal and regulatory proceedings and claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business, including product
liability, patent infringement, asbestos related claims,
environmental and other claims, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Although it is difficult to predict the
ultimate outcome of these proceedings and claims, the Company
believes the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operation or cash flows of the Company. Any costs that the Company
estimates will be paid as a result of these claims are accrued when
the liability is considered probable and the amount can be
reasonably estimated. If a range of amounts can be reasonably
estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than
any other amount, then the minimum of the range is accrued. The
Company does not accrue liabilities when the likelihood that the
liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be
reasonably estimated or when the liability is believed to be only
reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an
unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible and which
are material, the Company discloses the nature of the contingency
and, in some circumstances, an estimate of the possible loss."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ny6RO8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,800 PI Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc, as of December 31, 2021, had an approximately
11,800 asbestos-related cases pending against them, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named
as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases
involve product liability claims based principally on allegations
of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited
number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that
individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's
property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants
in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary
damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged
exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement
in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or
produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large
percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have
been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an
adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos
claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. When
appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to
settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Lj57qa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner
of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the
plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by
the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured
with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur
any material liability with respect to these to claims.
When it is probable that a loss has been incurred and possible to
make a reasonable estimate of the Company's liability with respect
to such matters, a provision is recorded for the amount of such
estimate or the minimum amount of a range of estimates when it is
not possible to estimate the amount within the range that is most
likely to occur.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3tOA6EC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Faces Numerous Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro, along with numerous
other third parties, has been named as a defendant in
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of
industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump
and fluid handling industries, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague,
general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the
numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing
products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries
(including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised
that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of
mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who,
together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases.
Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce
evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases, where
evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that
the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been
that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The
Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these
cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December
31, 2021 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $4.8
million which together with all legal fees other than corporate
counsel expenses; $4.7 million have been paid by the Company's
insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees,
was approximately $41,000.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3tRRect
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 104 Exposure Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure
to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned
and/or operated by us. There are 104 of these types of cases
pending, involving a total of approximately 578 plaintiffs. In
addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio
state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability, if any.
"We believe the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these
matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not
material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible
outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have
sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a
finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to
time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims
purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including
notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into
settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These
insurers may seek indemnification from us.
"In addition to the matters described above, we and our affiliates
are also involved in various other environmental, contractual,
product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment
and other claims and disputes incidental to present and former
businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these
items, although we do not expect additional material insurance
coverage for environmental matters. We currently believe that the
disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes
(including asbestos-related claims), individually or in the
aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity
beyond the accruals already provided."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3uZMcKD
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Still Faces PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., is a party, as plaintiff or
defendant, to various suits in the ordinary course of business for
monetary relief arising principally from personal injuries
(including without limitation exposure to asbestos and other toxic
materials), wrongful death, collision or other casualty and to
claims arising under charter parties, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "A substantial majority of such personal
injury, wrongful death, collision or other casualty claims against
the Company are covered by insurance (subject to deductibles not
material in amount). Each of the claims involves an amount which,
in the opinion of management, are not expected to be material to
the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3iPuIux
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 106 Personal Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 106
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 169 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/36yNjsx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Defends A&E Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that relate
to asbestos and other environmental matters, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The amount of ultimate liability, if any, with
respect to these proceedings is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or
cash flows. We are proactive in establishing policies and operating
procedures for safeguarding the environment against any hazardous
materials aboard our vessels and at shore-based locations. The Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 also requires owners and operators of vessels
over 300 gross tons to provide the USCG with evidence of financial
responsibility to cover the cost of cleaning up oil spills from
those vessels. Several foreign jurisdictions also require us to
present satisfactory evidence of financial responsibility."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3NxSjy6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc.'s Subsidiary Defends Numerous PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s majority-owned subsidiary, NL, has been named as a
defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging
personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to
products manufactured by former operations containing asbestos,
silica and/or mixed dust, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure
to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned
and/or operated by NL. There are 104 of these types of cases
pending, involving a total of approximately 578 plaintiffs. In
addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio
state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, NL has not been
adjudicated liable in any of these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3700T87
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumed Personal Injury Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. has assumed defense of the
personal injury lawsuit subject to a reservation of rights and
objection to the claim for indemnification, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The acquiror of certain assets from a former operating unit of the
Company has been named as a defendant in an asbestos personal
injury lawsuit and has submitted a claim for indemnification and
tendered defense of the matter to the Company. Neither the Company
nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the
injury underlying this action. The Company does not expect that
this claim will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. Moreover, during
2012, the Company secured insurance coverage that will help to
reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of
its former operating unit relating to these claims. The Company
intends to vigorously defend all currently active actions, and it
does not anticipate that this action will have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. However, the outcomes of any legal action cannot be
predicted and, therefore, there can be no assurance that this will
be the case.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3tSQPq8
*********
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 ***