/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220427.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, April 27, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 78
Headlines
217 BOURBON: Settlement in Bancroft Suit Wins Court Approval
3M COMPANY: Exposed Military Personnel to PFAS, Ravencraft Says
3M COMPANY: Hopson Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: O'Brien Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 29 Deadline
AMERICAN FAMILY: Loch Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Lazaar Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Nurse Files Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
API HEAT: Kolbow Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Raposo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Advertises False Reference Prices Online
ASURION LLC: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Alleges
ATBCOIN LLC: August 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Khoshchin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AUFFENBERG HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Robocalls
AURINIA PHARMA: Robbins Geller Rudman Reminds of June 14 Deadline
AURINIA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
BLACKBERRY: Settles Long-Time Lawsuit Over BB10
BLUE BOTTLE: Tristant Sues Over Failure to Pay on a Weekly Basis
BLUE DIAMOND: Court Dismisses Bajaras Suit With Leave to Amend
BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Kalinowski Suit With Prejudice
BRAMALO PASTA: Zazzarino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BUREAU OF PRISONS: Blades, et al File Class Certification Bid
CAMPING WORLD: Faces Baldwin Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
CARE ONE: Fails to Protect Patients From Covid-19 Virus, Suit Says
CENTENE CORP: Scheduling Order Amended in Duff Class Action
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Employees Win Class Certification Bid
CREDIT SUISSE: CMP, Scheduling Order Amended in Set Capital Suit
DAIRY FARMERS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Southwest
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settlement in Banks Suit Has Final Approval
DOCUSIGN INC: Judge Tapped Labaton Sucharow to Lead Class Action
DRBNORTE LLC: Faces Meraz Suit Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
EPOCH LLC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Kevin Matias-Rossello
ESTATE MANAGEMENT: Rattacasa Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Enlargement of Class Cert. Sched Sought
EXXON MOBIL: Ct. Tosses Ramirez Bid for Class Certification
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Class Certified in Net Tracking Suit
FCA US: Faces Reilman Suit Over Defective Chrysler Pacifica PHEVs
FEDERAL RESERVE: 9/11 Victims Seek Equal Distribution of Assets
FEDEX CORP: OverPeck, et al Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses
FERRANDINO & SON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Knickerbocker Says
FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Lygos Merger
FORD MOTOR: Peeling Paint Class Action Denied Certification
GEICO: Must Face Adjuster's Overtime Class Action in Massachusetts
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Chevrolet Bolt Battery Defects
GOOGLE: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Maps Monopoly, Waze Deal
GRAB HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 16 Deadline
GRINELL SELECT: Geist Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
GUITAR CENTER: Lockhart Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
HALIFAX HEALTH: MSPA Claims Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
HELVEY & ASSOCIATES: Face Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
HOME DEPOT: ERISA Class Action Members Seek Judge's Recusal
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 24 Deadline
ILLINOIS: Harris Exempted From PACER Access Fees in Monroe v. IDOC
LAIRD SUPERFOOD: 'Grossly Overstates' Servings in Creamer Products
LILIUM NV: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of June 17 Deadline
LILIUM NV: Robbins Geller Rudman Reminds of June 17 Deadline
LILIUM NV: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
LIVONIA EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jacques Suit Claims
LOWE'S HOME: Merhi Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
MDL 2800: Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Suit Granted in Part
MDL 2836: DDP's Bid to Certify Class in Zetia Antitrust Suit Denied
META PLATFORMS: Walker VPPA Suit Removed to N.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Wants Appellate Court to Overturn Class Suit Ruling
MIDLAND CREDIT: Buford Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Alabama
MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Young Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MONROE & MAIN: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MVM INC: Underpays Travel Youth Care Workers, Anderson Suit Says
NETFLIX RUSSIA: Users Launch Class Action Against Streaming Giant
NORTH SHORE HOME: St. John Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Settles CBS Shareholders' Class Suit for $14.75MM
PEPSICO INC: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PERMANENT GENERAL: Judge Certifies Auto Policy Fee Class Action
PHL VARIABLE: Kenney Files Suit in D. Connecticut
PNC MERCHANT: $10MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
PROCESS RETAIL: Olivera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Clayton Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D. Ohio
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Amount of Paper Towels
QUALITY TRAILER: Joint Bid for Conditional Class Cert. OK'd
RUTGERS BUSINESS: Manipulated Job Placement Data to Boost Ranking
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: N.D. California Stays Salhotra Suit Proceedings
SKYLINE HEALTH: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Dante Class Suit
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Jean-Francois Claims
SPORTS RESEARCH: Judge Certifies False Advertising Class Action
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Varela Files Suit in D. Minnesota
STEPHEN GEORGE: Razuri Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
SUPER CARE: Faces Shalviri Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
T. ROWE PRICE: To Settle Retirement Plan Mismanagement Suit for $7M
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Vacation of $18M Judgment in KB Home Suit Flipped
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Albrecht Suit Over Proposed Merger
TAX LEADERS: Andreychenko Sues Over Tax Preparers' Unpaid Wages
TEGNA INC: Workers Seek Class Certification in 401(k) Class Suit
TENNESSEE: Ex-inmates' Lawsuit Alleges Forced 'Sex Shows' in Jail
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Buccigrossi Suit
TRILLER INC: Averts Biometric Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
TWITTER: Musk Waited Too Long to Disclose Stock Purchase, Suit Says
UMG RECORDINGS: Group of Musicians Seeks Class Certification
UNITED STATES: E.D. California Dismisses Montgomery v. SSA Suit
UNITED STATES: Former SEC Officials Face Class Action Suit
UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Court Wants Info on Risley Suit Class Notice
USI INSURANCE: New York Court Tosses 401(k) Plan Class Action
VERIDIAN: Falsely Touts Lidocaine Patches as 'Maximum Strength'
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Aug. 18 Audi Transmission Settlement Hearing Set
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Predatory Program
WITHERSPOON HOUSE: Professor Sues Over Unlawful Living Conditions
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Sponsor
*********
217 BOURBON: Settlement in Bancroft Suit Wins Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRITTANY BANCROFT, et al. v. 217 BOURBON, LLC, et al.,
Civil Action No. 21-545 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry H. Wise of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the
parties' joint motion to approve the settlement of collective
action and to dismiss claims with prejudice.
I. Background
Before the Court is the joint motion to approve settlement of
collective action and to dismiss claims with prejudice, filed by
plaintiffs Brittany Bancroft, Ariel Sharone, and opt-in plaintiffs
Cullen Frazier, Ashton Legleu, and Derika Meier (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), and defendants 217 Bourbon, LLC and Jesse Wade
Yeomans (collectively, "Defendants"). Having considered the
parties' memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court
issues this Order & Reasons granting the motion.
The Plaintiffs are former bartenders at The Drinkery, a bar and
restaurant operated by the Defendants. They allege that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by
failing to pay them and other similarly situated bartenders the
proper minimum wages and overtime compensation.
During a settlement conference with the magistrate judge, the
parties successfully negotiated a confidential settlement. Because
the case arises under the FLSA, the Court must approve the fairness
of the settlement. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court
approves their settlement and dismisses all claims with prejudice
on the terms set forth in the settlement agreement and release
negotiated by the parties.
II. Law & Analysis
When employees bring a private action for back wages under the
FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed settlement, the
district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing
the settlement for fairness. "To pass muster, a settlement
agreement must be both (1) the product of a bona fide dispute and
(2) fair and reasonable." Judge Wise analyzes the fairness of the
settlement agreement accordingly.
Judge Wise finds that there is a bona fide dispute between the
parties as to whether the Defendants violated the FLSA. The parties
represent that "numerous matters are currently in dispute,
including whether the Defendants were joint employers under the
FLSA, whether the Plaintiffs were properly paid straight and
overtime compensation, whether Defendants properly used the tip
credit and whether the Defendants maintained accurate records."
Further, the parties represent that the "Defendants strongly
dispute invalidation of the tip credit, and maintenance of
inaccurate records," which the Plaintiffs recognize is "a
fact-intensive" determination that would be decided at trial.
Accordingly, Judge Wise finds the matter involves both aggressive
prosecution and strenuous defense and thus a bona fide dispute
exists."
Judge Wise also finds that the settlement agreement is a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. First, there is no
indication or claim of fraud or collusion; the parties represent
that "the proposed Settlement is the product of serious, informed
and non-collusive negotiations." Second, the litigation has neared
its end stages as trial was set to start April 11, 2022, and so, in
preparation for trial, the parties "conducted formal discovery,
independent investigations of the facts and law throughout this
action, and a thorough examination of Defendants' wage and time
records, tip sheets, policies and procedures and other records."
Third, throughout the entire proceeding, the parties "were
vigorously represented by the counsel experienced in FLSA
litigation" who "weighed the benefits and costs of the present
settlement against the risks and rewards of future litigation.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wise granted the motion and
approved the settlement.
Within 14 days of the Order & Reasons, the Defendants will deliver
$450 to the counsel for the Plaintiffs for disbursement pursuant to
the terms of the settlement.
All claims in the matter are dismissed with prejudice, each party
to bear her, his, or its own costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/k25va6rc from Leagle.com.
3M COMPANY: Exposed Military Personnel to PFAS, Ravencraft Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRADFORD RAVENCRAFT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01283-RMG (D.S.C., April 20, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
left nephrectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hopson Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE HOPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01282-RMG (D.S.C., April 20, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced on-going
medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a right
partial nephrectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: O'Brien Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY P. O'BRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01280-RMG (D.S.C., April 20, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his alleged exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and military personnel, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention via partial nephrectomy, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against Affirm Holdings, Inc. ("Affirm") (NASDAQ: AFRM). The
action charges Affirm with violations of the federal securities
laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations
relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a
result of Affirm's materially misleading statements to the public,
Affirm's investors have suffered significant losses.
CLICK https://bit.ly/3vOZHgk TO SUBMIT YOUR AFFIRM LOSSES. YOU CAN
ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/afrm-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=afrm
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: APRIL 29, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: FEBRUARY 12, 2021 THROUGH FEBRUARY 10, 2022
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.
AFFIRM'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Affirm describes itself as a "next generation platform for digital
and mobile-first commerce." Through its platform, Affirm offers
"buy now, pay later" or "BNPL" services to consumers. Affirm
represents itself as "a more flexible and transparent alternative
to credit cards."
On February 12, 2021, Affirm issued a post-market press release
announcing Affirm's fiscal year 2021 second quarter results. The
press release quoted Max Levchin, Affirm's Chairman of the Board of
Directors and Chief Executive Officer, who stated, in relevant
part, that: Affirm's "mission has been to build honest financial
products that improve lives"; "[w]e've aligned our success with the
success of both sides of the commerce ecosystem, winning when our
consumers . . . win"; and "we remain committed to empowering
consumers to take control of their finances[.]"
Then, on December 16, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB) announced that it had launched an inquiry into
Affirm's BNPL payment service, along with four other companies
offering BNPL. The CFPB indicated that it was concerned about how
BNPL leads to accumulating debt, regulatory arbitrage, and data
harvesting, and is seeking data on the risks and benefits of the
products. In a statement addressing BNPL services, the CFPB
Director stated, "[t]he consumer gets the product immediately but
gets the debt immediately too." Following this news, Affirm's stock
price fell $11.74 per share, or 10.58%, to close at $99.24 per
share on December 16, 2021.
Then, at approximately 1:15 p.m. on February 10, 2022, Affirm
issued a tweet from its official Twitter account, wherein Affirm
disclosed certain metrics from its second quarter 2022 financial
results. The Tweet, which was published prior to Affirm's planned
release of its financial results, portrayed a highly successful
quarter, which included an increase in revenue of 77%. This caused
Affirm's share price to spike nearly 10% in intra-day trading.
Affirm later deleted the Tweet and released its full second quarter
financial results ahead of schedule, which were lackluster, posting
a loss of $0.57 per share, compared with analyst expectations of
$0.37 per share. Following this news, Affirm's share price
plummeted from an intra-day high of $83.57 per share on February
10, 2022, to close at $58.68 per share, or approximately 32%.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Affirm investors may, no later than April 29, 2022 seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Affirm investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
Contacts
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Loch Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOAN LOCH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Case
No. 3:22-cv-00213 (W.D. Wisc., April 13, 2022) seeks to recover
compensation and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota
Payment of Wages Act (MPWA).
The Plaintiff Joan Loch was employed by American Family in Eden
Prairie, Minnesota from 1993 to approximately September of 2020.
She contends that she did not receive overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess 40 hours per workweek.
The FLSA Collective Members are those persons who worked for
American Family as salaried PIPs, Med Pays, and No-Fault Insurance
Adjusters, anywhere in the United States, and at any time from
April 7, 2019 through the final disposition of this matter, and
have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which
Plaintiff Loch worked and were paid.
Defendant American Family provides vehicle, property, life, and
commercial insurance products to customers throughout the United
States. To provide its services, American Family employed (and
continues to employ) numerous adjusters -- including Plaintiff and
the individuals that make up the putative or potential class.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
5150 N. Port Washington Road, Ste 243
Milwaukee WI, 53217
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER , PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Lazaar Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE LAZAAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as a Collective and Class representative, v. THE ANTHEM
COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03075 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2022)
is a collective and class action seeking to recover overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor
Law (NYLL).
The putative "FLSA Collective" is made up of all persons who are or
have been employed by Defendant in New York as Utilization Review
Nurses, Medical Management Nurses, Utilization Management Nurses,
or other similar positions who were paid a salary and treated as
exempt from overtime laws, and whose primary job was to perform
medical necessity reviews during the applicable statutory period.
As a result of Defendant's willful and illegal pay practices,
Plaintiff and those similarly situated were deprived of overtime
compensation for their hours worked in violation of federal and New
York state law.
The Plaintiff's paystubs list Anthem and its principal place of
business address as her employer.
Anthem is a multi-line health insurance company that provides
managed care programs and related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: srey@nka.com
fisher@nka.com
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Nurse Files Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that a class action was filed in the
Southern District of New York against Anthem Companies, Inc. The
complaint alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and New York Labor Law.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a Utilization Review
Nurse. In this role, the plaintiff and other members of the class
reviewed medical records submitted by medical providers against
pre-determined guidelines and criteria for insurance coverage and
payment purposes.
The plaintiff argued that the work routinely occupied more than 40
hours a week and could hit 60 hours a week to keep up with the
necessary workload based on the number of utilization requests and
the number of workers available to review the requests. The
plaintiff also argues that the plaintiff wrongfully classified the
members of the class as exempt employees and knew that the
employees were routinely working more than their scheduled work
hours to meet demand.
Plaintiffs are suing for violation of the FLSA, including failure
to document hours and failure to pay overtime, and for violations
of New York Labor Law. Plaintiff is represented by Nichols Kaster
PLLP. [GN]
API HEAT: Kolbow Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KOLBOW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. API HEAT TRANSFER INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00451-WED
(E.D. Wisc., April 13, 2022) is a collective and class action
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"),
and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.
According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via electronic
timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift, post-shift,
and in-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment
of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of
the FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates
of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA
and WWPCL.
The Defendant designs and manufactures heat exchangers and heat
transfer solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Raposo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix A. Raposo, for himself and all others similarly situated v.
ARC ONE PROTECTIVE SERVICES LLC, CHANCE RAMOS, AND AUSTIN WALLACE,
Case No. 1:22-cv-21194-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff would regularly and routinely work more than 40 hours
in a workweek for the Defendants. The Defendants failed and refused
to pay the Plaintiff and the Collective overtime wages calculated
at time and one-half of their regular hourly rate(s) of pay for all
hours worked over 40 hours in each given workweek. The Defendants
willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff and the
Collective wages at a rate of time and one-half times their regular
rate(s) of pay for each of the overtime hours worked during the
relevant time. The Defendants either recklessly failed to
investigate whether their failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
Collective an overtime wage for the hours worked during the
relevant time period violated the Federal Wage Laws of the United
States, they intentionally misled the Plaintiff and the Collective
to believe that the Defendants were not required to pay an overtime
rate, and/or the Defendants concocted a scheme pursuant to which
the deprived the Plaintiff and the Collective of the overtime pay
earned, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from May 22, 2019, through
the present.
ARC One Protective Services LLC and, is a sui juris Florida
for-profit limited liability company that was authorized to conduct
and actually conducted its for-profit business in Florida and
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Phone: 305.230.4884
Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Advertises False Reference Prices Online
----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action alleges Ashley Furniture Industries has
deceived consumers by advertising products on its website with fake
"original" prices and corresponding "phantom discounts," creating
the illusion of savings.
The 26-page case in California alleges Ashley's use of false
reference pricing has misled consumers into believing certain items
have a higher market value than they actually do, and induced them
into making purchases. This type of "scheme," the suit alleges,
enables retailers such as Ashley Furniture to sell products at
prices above their true market value.
"It is well-established that false reference pricing violates
federal law and various state consumer protection statutes," the
complaint states. "Even so, sellers, including Ashley Furniture,
continue to use the tactic because they know they will be able to
increase sales and profits by tricking consumers into making
purchasing decisions based on the advertised reference prices."
The complaint argues that retailers understand that consumers are
vulnerable to a perceived bargain. Ashely Furniture thus has a
financial interest in "exploiting consumers' well-known behavioral
tendencies" by inducing them into believing they are receiving a
deal, even when they are not, the case claims. Reference prices are
often the first, if not the only, insight consumers have into a
product besides its sale price, and the reference price is thus
used as a baseline upon which to perceive an item's value,
according to the suit.
Under California law, a retailer may only discount an item from its
true original price for up to 90 days, the case states. In the
alternative, a seller may offer a discount from the original price
being offered by a competitor, within the relevant market, for up
to 90 days, according to the filing. In either scenario, the
lawsuit says, a seller can only offer a sale from an original price
for 90 days; on the 91st day, the product at issue must either
return to its full original price, or the seller may continue to
sell it at the discounted price as long as it discloses to
consumers the date on which the item was last offered for sale at
its alleged former price, the case stresses.
With regard to Ashely Furniture in particular, the suit claims that
the company regularly advertises a product's seemingly original
price with a strikethrough, and a discount percentage is often
shown alongside the "original" price. This communicates to
consumers that a particular product is for sale at a substantial
discount, even though it is not in fact discounted, the case
contends.
Nowhere on Ashley Furniture's website does the company disclose
that the advertised "original" prices are not former prices, or
recent, or being offered within 90 days of a regularly offered
former price, or the prices at which identical products are sold
elsewhere on the market, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in California who, within
the applicable statutory period, bought from Ashley Furniture's
website one or more products at discounts from an advertised
reference price and who have not received a refund or credit for
their purchase. [GN]
ASURION LLC: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ASURION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00269 (M.D.
Tenn., April 14, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed by Asurion to the Plaintiff and Asurion's other
non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but Asurion's decision to make its own
non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the
hack.
Asurion's failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, for all
hours worked violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA).
Like many other companies across the United States, Asurion's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout Asurion's organization.
As a result, Asurion's workers who were not exempt from overtime
under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked
and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium for all overtime
hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack. Alexis Rodriguez
is one such Asurion worker.
Asurion could have easily implemented a system to accurately record
time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees
until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't.
Instead, Asurion used prior pay periods or reduced payroll
estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these
non-exempt hourly and salaried employees, the lawsuit says.
Asurion provides insurance, repair, installation, and support
services for electronics. Asurion employs over 23,000 workers
(Asurion, About Us, https://www.asurion.com/about/ (last visited
Apr. 12, 2022).
Many of Asurion's employees are non-exempt hourly and salaried
workers. Since at least 2021, Asurion has used timekeeping software
and hardware operated and maintained by Kronos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com
rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999 5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
ATBCOIN LLC: August 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky LLP on April 18 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed settlement of class action
that would benefit purchasers of ATBCOIN LLC Tokens:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
ATB TOKENS BETWEEN JUNE 12, 2017 AND SEPTEMBER 15, 2017, INCLUSIVE,
WHILE LOCATED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY
(THE "CLASS").
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 30,
2022 at 3:00 p.m. via telephone before the Hon. Vernon S. Broderick
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, using the dial-in 888-363-4749 and the access code
2682448, to determine whether, among other things: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") with ATBCOIN LLC, Edward Ng, and
Herbert W. Hoover (the "Defendants") for $250,000 in cash plus any
earnings on any such monies should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the proposed Final Judgment,
dismissing and releasing various claims against the Settling
Defendants, as provided for by the settling parties' Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation"), should be entered; (3)
the Proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved; and (4) an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement proceeds
should be made.
This litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired ATB Tokens during the
Class Period while located within the United States and were
allegedly damaged thereby (the "Class Members") against the
Defendants for allegedly issuing unregistered securities in
violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiff alleges
that these caused damages to Class Members. The Settling Defendants
deny all of Lead Plaintiff's allegations.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.
To be eligible to share in the distribution of the proposed
Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights to do so by
submitting a Proof of Claim form to the Claims Administrator so
that it is received no later than August 23, 2022. Your failure to
do so will preclude you from receiving any portion of the
Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, or application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed and delivered to Lead Counsel for the Class
and Defendants' Counsel at the addresses below as well as the
Court: Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse,
40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 received no later than August
9, 2022, in the manner and form explained in the full printed
"Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action" (the
"Notice").
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY AUGUST 9, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND
FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOT
REQUEST EXCLUSION THEREFROM, YOU WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
AND BY ANY FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THIS MATTER WHETHER OR NOT YOU
SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM.
You may obtain the Notice as well as a copy of the Stipulation
(which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined
terms used in this Summary Notice) and the proposed Final Judgment,
online at www.strategicclaims.net/ATB or by writing to the Claims
Administrator:
Balestra v. ATBCOIN LLCc/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson
Street, Suite 205 P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063
info@strategicclaims.net
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a
Proof of Claim form, may be made to Lead Counsel or Settling
Defendants' Counsel:
LeadCounselforLeadPlaintiff:Donald J. Enright LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007
Defendants'Counsel: Brian D. Caplan Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt,
LLC 885 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10022
Dated: March 29, 2022
HON. VERNON S. BRODERICK U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE [GN]
ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Khoshchin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atria Management
Company LLC, et al. The case is styled as Maryam Khoshchin, and all
others similarly situated v. Atria Management Company LLC, Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00318414-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., April 18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Atria Management Company doing busiess as Atria Senior Living, Inc.
-- http://www.atriaseniorliving.com/-- is one of the largest
senior living providers in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
AUFFENBERG HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that a
St. Clair County woman seeks class certification for a lawsuit
against Auffenberg Hyundai, Inc. for allegedly sending her
unsolicited prerecorded messages to her personal phone number.
Jennifer Staten filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois against Auffenberg Hyundai, Inc,
alleging the defendant's actions are illegal and that they have
caused disruption to her daily life.
According to the lawsuit, the car dealership allegedly sends
prerecorded voice messages to individuals' cellular phones numbers
without first obtaining their express consent. Staten alleges that
she has received numerous messages from the car dealership from
Feb. 17, 2020, through at least Oct. 1, 2021. Staten claims that
these messages constitute an "invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation and disruption of daily life" to her and thousands of
other individuals.
The plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $500.00 for each
violation for each person covered by the class action lawsuit. She
is represented by attorney Michael Eisenband of Eisenband Law, P.A.
in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number CV-00548-NJR [GN]
AURINIA PHARMA: Robbins Geller Rudman Reminds of June 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 18 disclosed that
purchasers of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH)
securities between May 7, 2021 and February 25, 2022 inclusive (the
"Class Period") have until June 14, 2022 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in Ortmann v. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc., No.
22-cv-02185 (E.D.N.Y.). Commenced on April 15, 2022, the Aurinia
class action lawsuit charges Aurinia and certain of its top
executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Aurinia class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Aurinia class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 14,
2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes therapies to treat various diseases
with unmet medical need in Japan and China. Aurinia's only product
is LUPKYNIS, which it offers for the treatment of adult patients
with active lupus nephritis.
The Aurinia class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Aurinia was experiencing declining revenues;
(ii) Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall well
short of expectations; (iii) accordingly, Aurinia had significantly
overstated LUPKYNIS' commercial prospects; (iv) as a result,
Aurinia had overstated its financial position and/or prospects for
2022; and (v) thus, Aurinia's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On February 28, 2022, Aurinia issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the quarter and full year ended December 31,
2021. Among other items, Aurinia reported a year-over-year revenue
decline and announced a lower-than-expected sales outlook for 2022.
On this news, Aurinia's common share price fell by more than 24%,
damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Aurinia
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Aurinia class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Aurinia class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Aurinia class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Aurinia class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms
representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is
ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone –- more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever –- $7.2 billion –- in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
AURINIA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH) between
May 7, 2021 and February 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 14,
2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Aurinia Pharmaceuticals securities during
the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Aurinia Pharmaceuticals class action,
go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3851 or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Aurinia was experiencing
declining revenues; (2) Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS
would fall well short of expectations; (3) accordingly, the Company
had significantly overstated LUPKYNIS's commercial prospects; (4)
as a result, the Company had overstated its financial position
and/or prospects for 2022; and (5) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Aurinia Pharmaceuticals class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3851 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BLACKBERRY: Settles Long-Time Lawsuit Over BB10
-----------------------------------------------
Monica Alleven reports that BlackBerry Limited has agreed to pay
$165 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the
company exaggerated the success of its BlackBerry 10 smartphone
line.
A complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York was filed in October 2013. The settlement affects
investors who bought shares between March 28, 2013, and September
20, 2013.
"While BlackBerry believes that the allegations in the case were
without merit, it also believes that eliminating the distraction,
expense and risk of continued litigation is in the best interests
of the company and its shareholders," the company said in a
statement.
Reuters reported that the Canadian company was planning to settle
the lawsuit to avoid a trial in the United States. Jury selection
had been scheduled to begin April 14.
The company was accused by shareholders of concealing BlackBerry
10's true sales prospects in public statements during 2013,
resulting in inflated share prices.
End of Era
Once a mighty player in the smartphone business - President Obama
famously clung to his BlackBerry - the company was founded as
Research In Motion (RIM) in 1984. It was led for years by co-CEOs
Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie.
In its heyday, BlackBerry enjoyed a stranglehold of sorts as it had
its own closed circle of users, similar to what Apple is doing with
iPhone today, albeit on a much grander scale. But BlackBerry's
market share began to erode as Apple iOS and Google's Android came
to dominate.
In 2016, BlackBerry decided to exit the smartphone manufacturing
business and instead focus on software development and licensing.
Now, it's focused on areas like cybersecurity. During the company's
most recent earnings call, CEO John Chen said market conditions for
its cybersecurity business are positive; cyber revenue accounted
for $122 million in the prior quarter, according to a transcript
(PDF).
Elsewhere, hopes for a BlackBerry-like comeback were dashed when a
company called OnwardMobility went out of business.
Some diehard BlackBerry device fans were hoping OnwardMobility
would produce a long-awaited replacement, but the company announced
in February that it would no longer proceed with the development of
an "ultra-secure" smartphone with a physical keyboard. [GN]
BLUE BOTTLE: Tristant Sues Over Failure to Pay on a Weekly Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Myranda Tristant, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03184 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant's failure to pay its manual workers on a weekly basis in
violation of the New York Labor Law.
New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner. Defendant has received no such authorization from the
New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. Defendant has
violated and continues to violate this law by paying its manual
workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis. Plaintiff
therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
individually and on behalf of a putative class comprised of all
manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over the
last six years, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from December 2021 to
February 2022 at a Blue Bottle Coffee.
The Defendant owns and operates Blue Bottle Coffee
Shops that employ hundreds, if not thousands, of manual workers in
the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
BLUE DIAMOND: Court Dismisses Bajaras Suit With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS BARAJAS, MARIA VARGAS, and ELBA VIZCAINO on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS INC.; DENISE HORN, individually; RESHAM KLAIR,
individually; and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-0679 JLT SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Defendants moved to dismiss all claims in the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
I. Background
Luis Barajas, Maria Vargas, and Elba Vizcaino assert they suffered
violations of wage and hour laws as employees of Blue Diamond
Growers. They seek to hold Blue Diamond Growers, Denise Horn, and
Resham Klair liable under federal and state law, stating claims on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, non-exempt
employees.
The Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees of Blue Diamond Growers,
which owns and operates almond processing plants in California.
Barajas was employed by Blue Diamond Growers from March 2005 until
Aug. 15, 2018. Vargas worked for Blue Diamond Growers from Jan. 1,
2008 to March 25, 2018. Vizcaino was employed from August 1997 to
March 12, 2018. The Plaintiffs assert that during their employment,
Denise Horn and Resham Klair were agents of Blue Diamond Growers.
The Plaintiffs assert Blue Diamond Growers failed to provide
compensation "for all hours worked." According to them, Blue
Diamond Growers "routinely requires and/or suffered or permitted
them and the similarly situated employees to work more than 40
hours per week." They contend Blue Diamond Growers "failed and
refused to pay all overtime premiums to Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week."
The Plaintiffs contend also that Blue Diamond Growers, Horn, and
Klair are liable for failure to pay minimum wage to employees. The
Plaintiffs allege they and other employees of Blue Diamond Growers
"were routinely required to work prior to their scheduled shifts
and after their scheduled shifts, without compensation." They
allege they were instructed by Blue Diamond Growers, Horn, and
Klair "to prepare for their shifts by putting on their
work/protective equipment prior to clocking in." They also assert
the employees "were required to doff their work/protective
equipment after clocking out at the end of their shift."
The Plaintiffs allege Blue Diamond Growers "failed to provide
timely and uninterrupted" rest and meal periods, "or pay premium
wages in lieu thereof." Instead, they contend "they were routinely
required to work during their meal periods," though "they and the
Class did not voluntarily or willfully waive" their meal and rest
periods. According to the Plaintiffs, they were "required to wear
radios in the 'on' position during their meal periods and were
required to respond to their radios for work related matters
without compensation." Similarly, the Plaintiffs contend they "were
not relieved of all duties during their rest periods and were
required to respond to calls on the radio during their rest
period."
Finally, the Plaintiffs assert they "were not paid all earned wages
at the time of end of the employment relationship with Blue Diamond
Growers." They allege, "On information and belief, other similarly
situated employees were not paid all wages earned at the time of
termination or resignation." The "Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants' custom, practice, and/or policy was not to pay for
previously earned minimum, overtime, or unrecorded time spent under
Defendant's control, at the time that final wages were paid."
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants "maintained and
enforced unlawful labor policies against employees that revolve
around their compensation policies and their record-keeping
procedures." Thus, the Plaintiffs seek to bring claims on their own
behalf "and others similarly situated," with "a Rule 23 opt-out
California class and as an opt-in FLSA Collective Action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 (b)."
The Plaintiffs propose the classes be defined as:
a. California Class: All persons who are employed or have been
employed by Blue Diamond Growers in the State of California who,
within four (4) years of the filing of the Complaint in the case,
who have worked as non-exempt hourly employees and were not paid
all lawful wages or not paid statutory penalties; and
b. FLSA Collective: All persons who are employed or have been
employed by Blue Diamond Growers in the State of California who,
within three (3) years of the filing of the Complaint in the case,
who have worked as non-exempt hourly employees and were not paid
all lawful wages.
The Plaintiffs initiated the action by filing a complaint on May
13, 2020, which the Plaintiffs amended on June 8, 2020. They
identify the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq.; (2) failure to pay minimum wage in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1197, 1194(a), and 1194.2; (3)
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 510, 1194, 1194.2 and IWC Wage Order 8; (4) failure to
provide rest periods or premium wages in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code Sections 226.7, 558, and IWC Wage Order 8; (5) failure to
provide meal periods or premium wages in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code Sections 226.7, 512, 558, and IWC Wage Order 8; (6) failure to
pay all wages at termination or resignation in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code Section 558.1; and (7) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.
The Plaintiffs seek disgorgement of all wages; declaratory relief;
compensatory damages; "restitution due to their unfair
competition," and "premium pay wages, and penalties."
The Defendants filed the motion to dismiss and strike portions of
the First Amended Complaint on Aug. 21, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the motion on Sept. 9, 2020, to which the
Defendants file a brief in reply on Sept. 15, 2020.
II. Discussion and Analysis
The Defendants seek dismissal of all causes of action, asserting
the facts alleged are insufficient to support the Plaintiffs'
claims for relief. They request the Court strikes or dismisses the
Plaintiffs' request for disgorgement and request for injunctive
relief. The Plaintiffs argue the Court should deny the request,
asserting they "sufficiently allege facts that establish directly,
or by reasonable inference, each of their claims under the liberal
notice pleading standard announced in Rule 8."
A. Liability of Individual Defendants
As an initial matter, the Defendants contend all claims raised
against the individual defendants -- Denise Horn and Reham Klair --
should be dismissed. In the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs
indicate "the core violations" alleged against Horn and Klair
include: "causing the: [1] failure to pay all minimum wages owed;
[2] failure to pay all overtime wages owed; (3) failure to provide
rest periods or pay additional wages; (4) failure to provide rest
periods or pay additional wages; (5) failure to pay all wages
earned at termination or resignation; and (6) failure to pay all
wages earned at termination or resignation." The Plaintiffs seek to
hold Horn and Klair liable for each of these alleged violations
under Labor Code Section 558.1.
Judge Thurston holds that the factual allegations are insufficient
to support a conclusion that Horn and Klair are "managing agents"
of Blue Diamond Growers, such that individual liability may be
imposed under Section 551.8 for the alleged violations of
California wage and hour law. Accordingly, dismissal of all claims
raised against Horn and Klair is appropriate. Furthermore, because
Horn and Klair may not be held liable as a matter of law for the
violations of Sections 201 and 202, the Sixth Claim for Relief as
raised against the individual defendants is dismissed without leave
to amend.
B. First Claim for Relief: Violation of the FLSA
The Plaintiffs seek to hold Blue Diamond Growers liable for
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, which regulates the minimum
wages paid to employees, including wages for "overtime" work. The
Defendants assert the Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to
support a claim under the FLSA, because Plaintiffs allege "only
boilerplate and conclusory allegations related to their overtime
claims." The Plaintiffs argue their allegations are sufficient
because they "are not required to plead every instance (i.e. date,
paycheck number, amount owed) in which Defendant failed to pay them
the overtime wages they earned."
Judge Thurston holds that the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
suffers pleading deficiencies. The Plaintiffs merely allege Blue
Diamond Growers "routinely" required the "Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees to work more than 40 hours per week, and
routinely without paying them all overtime premium wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week." They do not identify any
specific weeks they were required to work overtime, estimate the
amount of overtime worked or the amount of overtime wages owed, or
make any allegations beyond those which mirror the elements of a
claim for a violation of the FLSA. Given the lack of factual
allegations, Judge Thurston is unable to find the Plaintiffs stated
a cognizable claim for overtime wages under the FLSA. Therefore,
the motion to dismiss the claim for a violation of the FLSA is
granted.
C. Second Claim for Relief: Minimum Wage
The Plaintiffs seek to hold Blue Diamond Growers liable for failure
to pay minimum wages and statutory wage penalties in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1197, 1194(a), & 1194.2. The Defendants
argue the allegations are insufficient to state a claim and "fail
to comply with the Rule 8 pleading standards." The Plaintiffs
maintain they "sufficiently plead facts to state a California
minimum wage claim."
Judge Thurston finds that the Plaintiffs allege they were required
to perform uncompensated tasks that included donning and doffing
unidentified "protective equipment" before and after work. In
addition, the Plaintiffs assert they were not provided proper meal
periods because they needed to wear radios in the "on" position. To
the extent the Plaintiffs allege compensation was required for the
donning, doffing, and the meal periods, they have not estimated the
amount of time spent on these tasks. The Plaintiffs also did not
allege information regarding their hourly pay rates, such that the
Court may determine the identified tasks would cause their hourly
pay to fall below the mandated minimum wage. Thus, the allegations
are not sufficient to support a conclusion that the Plaintiffs --
or class members -- were paid less than the minimum wage in
violation of California law. Consequently, the motion to dismiss
the claim for minimum wage violations is granted.
D. Third Claim for Relief: Overtime Wages under California law
The Plaintiffs also seek to hold Blue Diamond Growers liable for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of state law, as
provided in Cal. Lab. Code Section 510 and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order 8. According to the Defendants, the
Plaintiffs offer only "statutory recitations that are not
sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss."
Judge Thurston determines that the Plaintiffs' claim for overtime
under California law suffers the same deficiencies as those
identified in Tavares. She says, although the Plaintiffs' overtime
under state law also adds minimal information regarding donning and
doffing, the Plaintiffs did not allege any facts to support a
conclusion that the time donning and doffing resulted in employees
being owed overtime wages. The named Plaintiffs did not allege any
information concerning their scheduled shifts or allege "any detail
regarding a given workweek when they worked in excess of 40 hours
and were not paid overtime for that given workweek." Because the
facts alleged are insufficient to state a plausible claim, the
motion to dismiss the overtime claim arising under California law
is granted.
E. Fourth Claim for Relief: Rest Period
The Plaintiffs allege Blue Diamond Growers "required that
Plaintiffs and the Class wear radios in the 'on' position at all
times, including during rest periods." As a result, the Plaintiffs
contend "they and the Class were not relieved of all duties during
their rest periods and were required to respond to calls on the
radio during their rest period." The Defendants argue the "claims
related to alleged rest period violations also fail to satisfy the
minimum pleading requirements of Rule 8," because the allegations
are insufficient to "reasonably infer that any violations have
occurred." The Plaintiffs argue they "sufficiently state a claim
for violations of California rest break laws."
Judge Thurston rules that the Plaintiffs' allegations suffer
deficiencies. She says, though the Plaintiffs allege Blue Diamond
Growers required employees -- including the Plaintiffs -- to "wear
radios in the `on' position at all times, including during rest
periods," the Plaintiffs do not allege their radios were, in fact,
kept on at all times nor do they identify any instances when they
responded to radio calls during their rest periods. The Plaintiffs
also do not identify any specific occasions when they were not
provided the required rest period. The facts as alleged are not
sufficient to state a plausible claim that the Plaintiffs or the
Class Members suffered rest break violations. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth claim for relief is
granted.
F. Fifth Claim for Relief: Meal Periods
The Plaintiffs also seek to hold Blue Diamond Growers liable for
failure to provide meal periods pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section
512 and Wage Order 8, which require employers to provide non-exempt
employees with an uninterrupted meal period of at least 30 minutes
for each work period of five hours, and two meal periods for each
period of 10 hours.
Judge Thurston holds that the Plaintiffs allege that "they and the
Class were also required to wear radios in the 'on' position during
their meal periods and were required to respond to their radios for
work related matters without compensation." Thus, the Plaintiffs'
meal period claim is based upon the same alleged unlawful policy as
the rest period claim. Given the lack of factual allegations
identifying any week in which the Plaintiffs suffered a meal period
violation, this claim suffers the same deficiencies as the rest
break claim, and similarly fails. Consequently, the claim for meal
period violations is also dismissed.
G. Sixth Claim for Relief: Wages Due at Termination or Resignation
The Plaintiffs seek to hold Blue Diamond Growers liable for
"failure to pay all earned wages at termination or resignation,"
pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202, which set
deadlines for paying employees unpaid wages. The Defendants argue
the claim for wages due fails because the "allegations constitute
nothing more than recitations of the statutory elements of
violations of Labor Code Sections 201 through 203."
Judge Thurston finds that the Plaintiffs do not respond to the
Defendants' argument that they cannot state a claim under Section
202 if their employment was terminated by the employer. Thus, it
appears each of the named Plaintiffs lacks standing to state a
claim based upon Section 202 for wages due.
Judge Thurston also finds that the Plaintiffs did not allege facts
sufficient to state plausible claims for minimum wage violations --
based upon alleged unrecorded time -- or overtime wages violations.
Consequently, these claims cannot support the Plaintiffs' claim
under Section 201. Consequently, to the extent the cause of action
is based upon a violation of Section 201, dismissal is likewise
appropriate.
Lastly, Judge Thurston holds that because the Plaintiffs failed to
allege sufficient facts to support a claim for a violation of
Section 201, and appear to lack standing under Section 202, the
Plaintiffs also fail to support their claim for waiting time
penalties under Section 203. Accordingly, the Defendants' request
for dismissal of the sixth claim for relief is granted.
H. Seventh Claim for Relief: Unfair Competition Law
The Plaintiffs' claim in the FAC is for a violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, as set forth in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq. Under Section 17200, unfair competition
includes any "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or
practice." Therefore, there are three prongs under which a claim
may be established under Section 17200 -- unlawful, unfair, or
fraudulent. Given the disjunctive nature of the prongs, an action
may be unfair even if it is not unlawful.
Judge Thurston finds that (i) given the lack of factual
allegations, the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the unfair
practices prong; (ii) because the Plaintiffs fail to plead the
circumstances surrounding the alleged fraud with particularity, the
UCL claim is not cognizable to the extent it is based upon the
"fraudulent" acts prong; and (iii) given the scarcity of factual
allegations, the Plaintiffs also fail to support their claim for a
violation of Section 17200 under the unlawful prong. The UCL claim
is dismissed.
I. Request for Injunctive Relief
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief directing the Defendants "to
comply with all applicable California labor laws and regulations in
the future and preventing Blue Diamond Growers from engaging in and
continuing to engage in unlawful and unfair business practices. The
Defendants assert that the "Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue
injunctive relief" because they are former employees of Blue
Diamond Growers. The Plaintiffs oppose dismissal of their claim for
injunctive relief, asserting "law surrounding UCL is clear" and
"the Plaintiffs asserting a UCL claim may obtain injunctive relief
against unfair or unlawful practices."
Judge Thurston finds that because the Plaintiffs did not allege any
facts sufficient to support a conclusion that they have a need for
prospective relief -- or even could benefit from it -- as former
employees of Blue Diamond Grower, they lack standing to purse
injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief is dismissed with prejudice.
J. Remedy of Disgorgement
The Plaintiffs request disgorgement under the Unfair Competition
Law. The Defendants argue that the "Plaintiffs' demand for
disgorgement under the UCL claim is independently improper, and
must be stricken from the FAC."
Judge Thurston finds that Judge Thurston the Plaintiffs acknowledge
"non-restitutionary disgorgement is not available in UCL claims,"
but maintain the "FAC indicated clearly they are seeking
restitutionary disgorgement." However, the Plaintiffs assert in the
FAC that Blue Diamond Growers "reaped and continue to reap unfair
benefits and unlawful profits" and "should be enjoined from this
activity and made to disgorge these ill-gotten gains." Because this
request focuses upon the alleged "unjust enrichment" of Blue
Diamond Growers, it is an indisputably a request for
nonrestitutionary disgorgement. As this remedy is unavailable under
the UCL, the Plaintiffs' request for nonrestitutionary disgorgement
is stricken.
K. References to Cal. Labor Code Sections 204, 214, 216, 218, 221,
and 1199
The Defendants request the Court dismisses references to the Labor
Code Section 204, 214, 216, 218, 221, and 1199. They assert these
Sections do not have supporting allegations, do not create an
employer obligation, or concerned only criminal matters. On the
other hand, the Plaintiffs contend the identified provisions should
not be dismissed, because they relied upon each of sections as
predicate violations of the UCL.
Because the sufficiency of all causes of action in the First
Amended Complaint were addressed extensively -- including the UCL
claim in which Sections 204, 214, 216, 218, 221, and 1199 were
incorporated as predicate violations. Judge Thurston declines to
further address the claims previously dismissed.
V. Leave to Amend
The Plaintiffs request that if the motions to dismiss or strike are
granted, then leave to amend be granted. Pursuant to Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend "shall be freely
given when justice so requires," bearing in mind "the underlying
purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather
than on the pleadings or technicalities. Leave to amend generally
will be denied only if allowing amendment would unduly prejudice
the opposing party, cause undue delay, or be futile, or if the
moving party has acted in bad faith.
Judge Thurston rules that the Court has insufficient information to
conclude that amendment is futile due to the sparsity of
allegations in the complaint concerning the Plaintiffs' employment
with Blue Diamond Growers. In addition, amendment would allow the
Plaintiffs to clarify the basis for their belief that Denise Horn
and Resham Klair are managing agents of Blue Diamond Growers, such
that individual liability may be invoked under Cal. Lab. Code
Section 558.1. Further, it does not appear amendment would cause
undue delay at this juncture, and there is no evidence before the
Court suggesting the Plaintiffs acted in bad faith. Thus, the
request for leave to amend is granted.
III. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Thurston granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims against Denise Horn and
Resham Klair, with leave to amend the Second, Third, Fourth, and
Fifth Claims for Relief. The Sixth Claim for relief as stated
against Denise Horn and Resham Klair is dismissed without leave to
amend. The motion to dismiss the First, Second, Third, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims for Relief as stated against Blue
Diamond Growers is granted, with leave to amend.
Judge Thurston dismissed the Plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive
relief. She struck the Plaintiffs' request for nonrestitutionary
disgorgement;
The Plaintiff will file any Second Amended Complaint within 45 days
of the date of service of the Order. Failure to comply with the
Order will result in the dismissal of the action for failure to
prosecute.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2mwvppwt from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Kalinowski Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the case captioned
as KEVIN KALINOWSKI v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.,
SECTION: H, Civil Action No. 17-4387 (E.D. La.).
The Motion was filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production,
Inc., BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and Transocean Holdings, LLC.
I. Background
The case is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana
before Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of the Court. The case was reassigned to Section H.
Plaintiff Kalinowski claims a myriad of medical conditions
resulting from continuous toxic exposure suffered after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Specifically, he claims to suffer from
"ear aches, headaches, vomiting, blurry vision, and breathing
problems." The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime
negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence with respect to
the spill and its cleanup.
Now before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has failed to
produce sufficient evidence to prove that exposure to oil or
dispersants caused his alleged injuries. To date, the Plaintiff has
filed no opposition to the Defendants' Motion.
II. Discussion
The Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the
Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the
legal cause of his alleged injuries. They argue that the Plaintiff
cannot do so because he has produced no expert testimony to support
his claims, and in a toxic tort case such as this, expert testimony
as to causation is required.
Having filed no opposition, the Plaintiff provides no response to
this argument. However, Judge Milazzo states that "a motion for
summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no
opposition." "The movant has the burden of establishing the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless he has done so, the
court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response
was filed."
The Plaintiff has the burden of proving causation. "B3 plaintiffs
must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response."
"Under the general maritime law, a party's negligence is actionable
only if it is a 'legal cause' of the plaintiff's injuries. Legal
cause is something more than 'but for' causation, and the
negligence must be a 'substantial factor' in the injury." In
general, "when the conclusion regarding medical causation is not
one within common knowledge, expert medical testimony is required
to prove causation."
In the case, Judge Milazzo finds that the causal connection between
exposure to oil or dispersants and the Plaintiff's injuries is not
within the common knowledge of a layperson. "In a toxic tort suit
such as this one, the plaintiff must present admissible expert
testimony to establish general causation as well as specific
causation."
The Plaintiff's deadline for expert disclosures and reports was
Dec. 28, 2021. He neither met this deadline nor moved for its
extension. Additionally, to date, the Plaintiff has failed to
oppose BP's motion or put forth any evidence of causation.
Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his
claims against the Defendants, and his claims must be dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Milazzo granted the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the case with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p86vms9 from Leagle.com.
BRAMALO PASTA: Zazzarino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RANK ZAZZARINO on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the class v. BRAMALO PASTA & PIZZA BAR LLC., d/b/a TRENTO,
DELITE RESTAURANT & PIZZERIA OF BELLMORE, INC., d/b/a BRAMALO
PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT, THE E.L.M PIE BAR INC., d/b/a AMERICANO PIE
BAR, MASSAPEQUA PARK PIZZA INC., d/b/a GINO'S PIZZA & PASTA, THE
BEST PIZZERIA-RESTAURANT, INC., d/b/a GINO'S TUSCAN, EMILIO
BRANCHINELLI, and LORENZO BRANCHINELLI, Case No. 2:22-cv-02229
(E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to an invalid tip credit; unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to time-shaving; unpaid wages, including overtime,
due to off-the-clock work; (4) unpaid overtime wages due to
improper blended overtime rates; liquidated damages; and attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to the FLSA, on behalf of all non-exempt front-of-house
and back-of-house employees (including delivery persons, servers,
runners, bussers, bartenders, baristas, cashiers, porters, cooks,
line-cooks, food preparers, stock persons, and dishwashers)
employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years
before the filing of the Complaint in this case.
The Defendants collectively own and operate five Italian
restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
BUREAU OF PRISONS: Blades, et al File Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BLADES and ANTWAN
BUCHANAN, et al., v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00279-ABJ (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying a settlement class as to all claims in this
action, defined as:
"All people who are serving or will be serving District of
Columbia code offenses who were sentenced by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia and who are held in the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons;"
2. certifying Jonathan Blades and Antwan Buchanan as class
representatives;
3. appointing Kavya Naini and Zoe Friedland from the Public
Defender Service for the District of Columbia as class
counsel.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency under the Department of Justice that is
responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated
individuals who have committed federal crimes; that is, violations
of the United States Code.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37prwnz
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kavya R. Naini, Esq.
Zoe E. Friedland, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
633 Indiana Ave. N.W.
Washington D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 824-2529
E-mail: knaini@pdsdc.org
CAMPING WORLD: Faces Baldwin Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BALDWIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPING WORLD HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:22-cv-00765 (M.D. Fla., April 20, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages to the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote
its goods and services without their prior express written consent.
As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed,
including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages,
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. is a retail company based in Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Action, reports that April is
National Records and Information Management Month, and, when it
comes to consumers, a business's ability to keep their data safe
and secure is a major point of emphasis.
A flurry of cyber attacks over the last year have led to a number
of data breach class action lawsuits lobbied against businesses and
led to several substantial settlement agreements.
Consumers taking aim at businesses have made claims from negligence
in protecting their data and privacy to failing to implement the
proper safeguards to effectively do so, among other things.
With this in mind, TCA is taking a look at recent class action
lawsuits and settlements related to data breaches, protection, and
privacy.
T-Mobile Data Breach Potentially Affects 100 Million Customers
T-Mobile announced last August that it fell victim to a data breach
that it said potentially exposed the personal and private
information of 100 million current and former customers.
The announcement led to a number of class action lawsuits filed
against T-Mobile, including from consumers who worried the data
breach would leave them vulnerable to identity theft.
Affected consumers are still eligible to join a free T-Mobile
shareholder lawsuit investigation.
Capital One Resolves Claims It Was Negligent In Storing Data
Capital One agreed to a settlement worth $190 million in December
to resolve claims the company was negligent in storing the
sensitive private information of customers affected by a 2019 data
breach.es
Consumers claimed in a March 2021 class action filed against the
bank that more than 106 million customers in the United States and
Canada were affected by the breach.
TikTok Agrees To Pay $92 Million Over Unlawful Data Collection
Claims
In December, TikTok agreed to pay users $92 million to resolve
claims the social networking video platform committed privacy
violations, including unlawful data collection.
TikTok was accused of collecting and storing the data of its users
without providing either proper notice or acquiring consent.
The settlement class, for which claims closed Mar, 1, was made up
of any individual in the United States who used TikTok before
October of last year.
As part of the settlement, TikTok agreed that it would stop
collecting users' biometric data, geolocation and GPS data.
Geico Warns Consumers Drivers License Numbers Exposed
Geico warned customers last April that their drivers license
information may have been exposed for more than a month following a
data breach.
The insurer claimed at the time to have fixed the breach but warned
its customers to keep an eye out for any fraudulent activity.
Later, in December, Geico customers who filed a class action
lawsuit against the company over the data breach implored a federal
court not to stay their claims as the insurer requested.
Equifax Pays $380.5 Million Following Historic Data Breach
A class action settlement worth at least $380.5 million opened for
claimants in February after Equifax agreed to resolve claims
associated with a 2017 data breach.
The data breach affected an estimated 147 million individuals,
making it the largest data breach involving personal and financial
information in the history of the country.
An extended claim period for the settlement has been opened through
January 2024, allowing claimants to gain reimbursement for money
lost or time spent recovering from the data breach during the
extended period.
Plaid Pays $58 Million To End Claims It Accessed Private Data
Last August, Plaid Inc. agreed to pay $58 million to resolve claims
it accessed the private data of consumers on Coinbase and Venmo
without first receiving consent.
The class action settlement was made to end consumers' claims that
the company had violated data privacy laws with its alleged
actions.
The settlement, which has a valid claim form submission deadline of
Apr. 28, is open for any U.S. resident who owns or owned a
financial account accessed by Plaid from between January 2013 and
Nov. 19, 2021.
Medical Institutions, Hospitals Vulnerable to Data Breaches
Cyber attacks have also targeted medical institutions with New
Mexico's San Juan Regional Medical Center falling prey to a 2020
data breach that exposed the private information of almost 69,000
of its patients.
Patients filed a class action lawsuit against the hospital, arguing
it was negligent by allowing the data breach to occur.
Class action lawsuits were also filed last year against Walmart,
Rite Aid and CaptureRX over claims the companies failed to protect
the information of customers from a February 2021 data breach.
CaptureRX would later agree to pay $4.75 million to resolve the
claims.
Data breaches affecting health care facilities can be especially
problematic for privacy reasons since hackers gain access not only
to an individual's private and financial information but to their
medical records as well.
If you believe you were injured by a data breach at a medical
clinic or hospital, you can fill out a form to see if you qualify
to receive a free healthcare data breach lawsuit claim review.
Companies Around Nation Agree To Data Breach Settlements
A number of other class action lawsuits have recently been settled
to resolve claims revolving around data breaches.
Bosley agreed earlier this month to pay $500,000 to end claims the
company mismanaged its cybersecurity, which customers argue led to
a 2020 data breach.
Also this month, Morgan Stanley put the finishing touches on a $60
million settlement agreement with current and former account
holders who claim the bank was negligent in allowing a 2016 and
2019 data breach to occur.
Herff Jones, meanwhile, agreed last month to pay $4.35 million to
end allegations the company failed to protect its customers from a
data breach that occurred between May and June of last year.
In January, Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield agreed to a settlement
providing injunctive relief to customers who claim the company
waited too long to disclose a 2015 data breach to them.
Also in January, Accellion agreed to a settlement worth $8.1
million to resolve claims the company had inadequate security
measures in place to prevent a December 2020 data breach which
affected 9.2 million of its customers.
RailWorks, meanwhile, in March 2021, agreed to provide current and
former employees with identity theft protection and up to $50 in
reimbursement for lost time resulting from a 2020 data breach. [GN]
CARE ONE: Fails to Protect Patients From Covid-19 Virus, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
STACY PETTUS as the personal representative of DESHON KIRBY,
deceased, GLORIA MILLER as the personal representative of ARTHUR
MILLER, deceased; GIOVANNA CALDARELLA as the personal
representative of ANTONINO CALDARELLA, deceased; LOLITA ROBERTS as
the personal representative of GEORGE E. MARTIN, deceased; and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARE ONE AT HOLMDEL,
CARE ONE AT EAST BRUNSWICK, CARE ONE AT THE HIGHLANDS, CARE ONE AT
WELLINGTON, CARE ONE ANCILLARY HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. (N.J.
Super., Bergen Cty., April 14, 2022) is class action, pursuant to
Rule 4:32 of the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons on or after January 1, 2020,
through the Present, who were residents and/or patients of the
Defendants CARE ONE and who contracted and died as a result of the
Covid-19 outbreak at those facilities.
In January 2020, the Defendants were made aware of severe acute
respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreading worldwide
and nationally, known colloquially as the coronavirus, that caused
severe medical distress and death in individuals who caught the
disease, especially, the elderly.
SARS-CoV-2 is known and documented to cause a debilitating and
deadly disease, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Covid-19 can and has spread rapidly in long-term residential care
facilities and persons with chronic underlying medical conditions
are at greater risk for COVID-19.
In fact, in February 2020, at a health care facility in Washington
State, residents and/or patients there were the first in the nation
to suffer from and die as a result of the Covid-19 virus; news of
the dire situation and the first deaths in the United States at the
Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington was widespread.
Despite these facts, the Defendants failed to take the proper steps
to protect the residents and/or patients at their facilities from
the Covid-19 virus.
The Defendants branded themselves as "Covid-capable" to strike a
deal to take Covid-19 patients from hospitals and greatly increase
its population of Covid-19 positive residents.
The Defendants were the target of a ProPublica investigations in
which the steps taken by Defendants to greatly increase its
Covid-19 positive population, and therefore put all of their
residents at risk.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Farnolo, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 397-1000
E-mail: NFarnolo@Napolilaw.com
CENTENE CORP: Scheduling Order Amended in Duff Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY DUFF, et al., v.
CENTENE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00750-DRC (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order granting the
Parties' joint motion to amend the Scheduling Order as follows:
-- Discovery deadline: May 2, 2022
-- The Plaintiffs' expert report(s) June 10, 2022
and designation(s):
-- The Plaintiffs' class June 30, 2022
certification motion:
-- Defendants' expert report(s) July 25, 2022
and designation(s):
-- Defendants' response to class Aug. 12, 2022
certification motion:
-- Rebuttal expert report(s) and Aug. 25, 2022
designation(s):
-- Plaintiffs' reply regarding Sept. 9, 2022
class certification motion:
-- Expert discovery deadline: Sept. 16, 2022
Centene Corporation is a publicly-traded managed care company based
in St. Louis, Missouri. It serves as an intermediary for
government-sponsored and privately insured health care programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/388vaCe at no extra charge.[CC]
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Employees Win Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN C. HINES, and
JOSEPH NORRIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-00109-PRW (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Patrick Wyrick
entered an order that:
1. A class consisting of "all current and former employees of
Continental Resources, Inc. who, during any period between
May 4, 2018 and the present, held the title of, and/or
performed similar job duties as, a Completions Foreman and
worked more than forty hours in one or more weeks during
this period without receiving overtime compensation," is
conditionally certified.
2. Upon Court approval, notice shall be sent to all present
and former FLSA non-exempt employees of Defendant, who at
any time during the relevant (2) Upon Court approval,
notice shall be sent to all present and former FLSA non-
exempt employees of Defendant, who at any time during the
relevant time period worked over forty hours in a workweek
and did not receive overtime pay.
3. The Defendant shall provide within fourteen days of the
date of this Order a roster of such present and former
employees, their last known home addresses, their last
known telephone numbers, and their year of birth.
4. The parties shall confer about the contents and form of the
notice to send to the class and submit a proposed notice to
the Court for approval within thirty days of the date of
this Order.
The Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that their former
employer, the Defendant, failed to pay them and other "Completions
Foreman" overtime wages. The Plaintiffs claim that such employees
have routinely worked and continue to work more than 40 hours per
week without being paid overtime compensation because Defendant
improperly classified them as exempt.
Continental Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KYNVq1 at no extra charge.[CC]
CREDIT SUISSE: CMP, Scheduling Order Amended in Set Capital Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SET CAPITAL LLC, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE
INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON
GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS
DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a/ JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Case No.
1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn
entered an amended civil case management plan and scheduling order
as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be November 17, 2022
completed no later than:
-- Substantial completion of June 21, 2022
all document discovery by:
-- Interrogatories shall be July 29, 2022
served by:
-- Requests to Admit shall be July 29, 2022
served no later than:
-- Depositions to be completed November 17, 2022
by:
-- Class certification motion July 1, 2022
and opening expert report(s)
shall be filed by:
-- Class certification opposition September 15, 2022
brief and expert opposition
report(s) shall be filed by:
-- Class certification reply November 17, 2022
brief and expert rebuttal
report(s) shall be filed by:
-- All motions for summary August 31, 2023
judgment shall be filed no
later than:
-- Oppositions to motions for September 29, 2023
summary judgment shall be
filed no later than:
-- Reply briefs in further October 20, 2023
support of summary judgment
shall be filed no later than:
Credit Suisse AG a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3vsXoj6 at no extra charge.[CC]
DAIRY FARMERS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Southwest
------------------------------------------------
Philip Gruber at lancasterfarming.com reports that Dairy Farmers of
America faces a class-action lawsuit claiming that it conspired to
suppress milk prices in the Southwest.
The complaint, filed April 4 in U.S. District Court in New Mexico,
alleges unlawful coordination on pricing between DFA, Select Milk
Producers and the Greater Southwest Agency, an organization that is
owned at least in part by the other two cooperatives.
The suit alleges the collusion has been happening since at least
2015 and seeks unspecified damages.
Kristen Coady, DFA senior vice president of corporate affairs, said
the co-op was still reviewing the filing but believes there is no
merit to any allegations that it violated the intent of antitrust
law.
This is not the first time farmers have accused the nation's
largest dairy cooperative of exploiting its size.
In 2016, DFA agreed to pay $50 million to settle a 2009
class-action suit that alleged the co-op and other partners had
worked to domineer the raw milk market in the Northeast. Some
farmers were disappointed with that settlement and filed another
lawsuit. [GN]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settlement in Banks Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v. QUINCY BOOTH, in
his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-849
(CKK) (D.D.C.), Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia granted the Parties' Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action on March 30,
2020 seeking (in general terms) injunctive relief addressing the
conditions at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility
and Correctional Treatment Facility (together, "D.C. Jail") during
the COVID-19 pandemic. After approximately 19 months of litigation,
the parties engaged in mediation over a four-month period through
the D.C. Circuit Mediation Program.
On Feb. 12, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement, which the Court granted on Feb. 18, 2022.
The Plaintiffs also filed an unopposed Motion for Certification of
Settlement Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, which the Court
granted for the reasons in its Order.
Pursuant to the Court's Orders, the Class Notice was required to be
posted and available for distribution within two business days of
the Court's Order granting the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. The Class Notice provided
instructions for submitting objections to the settlement to the
Court.
Four class members submitted objections. Two of the four objections
are predicated on the class members' concern that they will be
unable to file separate damages lawsuits against the Defendants for
their conduct during the COVID-19 pandemic if the Court approves
the settlement. Two other objections address specific failure by
the Defendants to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, including one
which seeks a "monetary penalty," and alleges that the Defendants
took too long to provide medication and medical services. A second
specific objection asks that the D.C. Jail be required to provide
regular access to drinking water, improved ventilation, and
adequate out-of-cell time.
The Court held a Final Fairness Hearing on April 12, 2022. During
the hearing, the Court heard arguments by the counsel for both
parties. Three out of the four class members who submitted written
objections appeared for the Final Fairness Hearing and presented
their objections orally.
II. Discussion
Upon consideration of the parties' joint motions, the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for certification of the settlement class, the
submissions of the Parties relating to the proposed Settlement, the
written and oral objections thereto, the arguments of counsel at
the Final Fairness Hearing, and the entire record of the case,
Judge Kollar-Kottelly grants the parties' Joint Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement.
She finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate within the meaning of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, that the class representatives and class counsel
have adequately represented the class, that the settlement is in
the best interest of the Settlement Class and provides adequate and
equitable relief to the members thereof, and is the product of
informed, arm's length negotiation by experienced counsel for the
parties. Moreover, she finds that these objections do not
demonstrate a lack of fairness or reasonableness in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lawsuit,
the parties, and all members of the Class. It retains jurisdiction
over this action for the limited duration of the Settlement
Agreement, which expires on Aug. 14, 2022.
Judge Kollar-Kottelly accepts the parties' stipulation that the
Settlement Agreement is not a consent decree. She further accepts
the parties' agreement as to 18 U.S.C. Section 3626(a)(1)(A) and
makes all necessary findings to retain jurisdiction for the
enforcement of the Settlement Agreement over its limited duration.
As set forth in the accompanying order, all the Class Members will
be bound by all determinations and judgments concerning the
Settlement Agreement and the settlement contemplated thereby.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the
parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. An
appropriate Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2nn34x9u from Leagle.com.
DOCUSIGN INC: Judge Tapped Labaton Sucharow to Lead Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Kim, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on April 18 tapped Labaton Sucharow and Kessler Topaz to lead
a proposed class action accusing software company DocuSign of
falsely assuring investors it would continue experiencing growth
and demand for its product after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted.
[GN]
DRBNORTE LLC: Faces Meraz Suit Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA MERAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DRBNORTE, LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-60735 (S.D. Fla.,
April 14, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets
its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite
policies and procedures and training required under the TCPA and
its implementing regulations.
The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and
the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, as
defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.
Commencing on November 2021, the Defendant sent telephonic sales
calls to cellular telephone number. The Plaintiff brings this
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as:
-- DNC Class
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior
to
the filing of this action (1) Defendant, or anyone on
Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one text message call
within any 12-month period; (3) where the person's telephone
number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least thirty days; (4) regarding Defendant’s
property, goods, and/or services; (5) who did not purchase or
transact business with Defendant during the eighteen months
immediately preceding the date of the first message; and (6)
who did not contact Defendant during the three months
immediately preceding the date of the first message with an
inquiry about a product, good, or service offered by
Defendant.
-- IDNC Class
"All persons within the United States who, within the four
years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of class certification, (1) received two or more text messages
within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's
property, goods, and/or services, (3) to said person’s
residential telephone number.
-- FTSA Class
"All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic
sales call regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or
services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment
utilized to call Plaintiff.
The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the
Class.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
EPOCH LLC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Kevin Matias-Rossello
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN OMAR
MATIAS-ROSSELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. EPOCH LLC; FOT INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A/ DOMINO'S PIZZA ;
AND CLUTCH CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01307-SCC-BJM
(D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendant
FOT's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss:
-- Dismisses with prejudice Counts I and II of the Complaint as
to Plaintiff Matías-Rossello;
-- Dismisses without prejudice Count III of the Complaint as to
Plaintiff Matías-Rossello;
-- dismisses with prejudice all claims against Epoch as to
Plaintiff Matías-Rossello;
-- Dismisses without prejudice all claims against Clutch; and
-- Dismisses without prejudice all collective action and class
action claims of the Complaint.
The Plaintiff Kevin Omar Matias-Rossello filed this putative
collective and class action suit against Epoch, FOT and Clutch for
alleged violations to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
unjust enrichment under Puerto Rico law.
At the time of the filing of this suit, the Plaintiff
Matias-Rossello was employed by FOT and worked in several of its
Domino's Pizza stores as a delivery driver.
There is considerable overlap between Counts I and II of the
Complaint since both counts allege that Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Matias-Rossello and those current and former similarly
situated employees the minimum hourly wage set forth in 29 U.S.C.
section 206(a) of the FLSA. In Count I, Plaintiff Matias-Rossello
appears to argue that given his status as a "tipped employee," if
Defendants were going to benefit from the tip credit exception,
they had to have notified him of this.
But since no notification was received regarding the taking of a
tip credit, the Defendants had to ensure that Plaintiff
Matias-Rossello was paid the minimum wage required by the FLSA,
which, he alleges, they ultimately did not do. Count II alleges
that Defendants violated the FLSA's anti-kickback regulation
codified at 29 C.F.R. section 531.35 because they failed to
adequately reimburse him for expenses related to the use of his
personal vehicle during his delivery runs such that Defendants
were, in essence, offsetting their business costs onto its
employees, the Court says.
Epoch provides a full line of residential appraisal and property
preservation services for Lake, McHenry, Cook, Kane and DuPage
counties.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Or80ra at no extra charge.[CC]
ESTATE MANAGEMENT: Rattacasa Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Albert Rattacasa, Johnathon Hammonds, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Estate Management
Services Inc., John Milton Crabb, III, Case No. 2022-CP-07-00655
was removed from the Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on April 18,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:22-cv-01251-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Estate Management Services, Inc. is a licensed and insured aquatics
contracting and land management company based in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marybeth E Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW
652 Rutledge Avenue, Suite A
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 588-5587
Fax: (843) 593-9334
Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr., Esq.
BARNWELL WHALEY PATTERSON AND HELMS LLC
PO Drawer H
211 King Street, Suite 300
Charleston, SC 29402
Phone: (843) 577-7700
Fax: (843) 577-7708
Email: mdc@barnwell-whaley.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Enlargement of Class Cert. Sched Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA HILL-GREEN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00708-MHL (E.D. Va.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order enlarging the
discovery and class certification schedule as follows:
Event Deadline
-- The Plaintiff to file Motion May 1, 2022
to Compel regarding existing
discovery issues (if necessary):
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to file August 1, 2022
a motion seeking class
certification:
-- Deadline for Defendant Experian 40 days following
Information Solutions, Inc. service of the
to file opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
motion seeking class certification:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to file 21 days following
a reply in support of motion service of
seeking class certification: Experian's
response
-- Deadline for class discovery: July 15, 2022
-- Deadline for merits discovery 45 days after the
Court's Motion for
Class Certification
-- Deadline for motion for summary 30 days after
judgment: completion
of merits discovery
-- Deadline for response to motion 30 days after
for summary judgment: service of the
motion
-- Deadline for replies in support 14 days after
of a motion for summary judgment: service of
response to the
motion
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K0eaeH
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
Kevin A. Dillon, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
kevin@clalegal.com
- and -
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler St NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jhashmall@bm.net
EXXON MOBIL: Ct. Tosses Ramirez Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO RAMIREZ, JR.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, REX W. TILLERSON, ANDREW P. SWIGER,
JEFFREY J. WOODBURY, and DAVID S. ROSENTHAL, Case No.
3:16-cv-03111-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an
order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
-- The Defendants' motion for reconsideration of their motions
to dismiss and to strike based on New Case Development and
Brief in Support is denied.
-- The Defendants' motion for leave to file reply brief
addressing new case development is granted. The Defendants'
reply in further support of its supplemental brief
addressing new case development will be filed as of this
date.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for oral argument regarding lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied.
Exxon Mobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation
headquartered in Irving, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MfB7Mi at no extra charge.[CC]
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Class Certified in Net Tracking Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Edward J. Davila entered an order certifying settlement class;
granting preliminary approval of class action settlement
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1); and approving
form and content of class notice.
-- Preliminary Certification of Settlement Class for Purpose
of Settlement Only
The Settlement is hereby preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate 20 such that notice thereof should
be given to members of the Settlement Class.
the Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for the
purpose of settlement only:
"All persons who, between April 22, 2010 and September 26,
2011, inclusive, were Facebook Users in the United States
that visited non-Facebook websites that displayed the
Facebook Like button."
-- Settlement Administration
The Court appoints Angeion Group to serve as the Settlement
Administrator.
Angeion Group shall supervise and administer the notice
procedures, establish and operate the Settlement Website,
administer the claims processes, distribute cash payments
according to the processes and criteria set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, and perform any other duties that are
reasonably necessary and/or provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.
-- Final Fairness Hearing
The Final Fairness Hearing shall be held by the Court on
October 27, 2022, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
By August 23, 2022 [not later than 65 days before the Final
Fairness Hearing], Class Counsel shall file all papers in
support of the application for the Final Approval Order and
Final Judgment, and any Motion for a Fee and Expense Award
and/or for Service Awards.
Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta and formerly known as
Facebook, Inc., and The Facebook, Inc., is an American
multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park,
California. The company is the parent organization of Facebook,
Instagram, and WhatsApp, among other subsidiaries.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OnMSSC at no extra charge.[CC]
FCA US: Faces Reilman Suit Over Defective Chrysler Pacifica PHEVs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBYN REILMAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-00811 (C.D.
Cal., April 13, 2022) arises out of the Defendant's failure to
disclose a uniform and widespread defect causing its 2017 to 2018
Chrysler Pacifica Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ("PHEVs") to
explode and catch fire.
The Defendant admits that the root cause of the fires is unknown,
and that no remedy exists to date. This class action primarily
challenges the pervasive false advertisements disseminated by
Defendant regarding the utility, functionality, and safety of its
2017 to 2018 Chrysler Pacifica PHEVs. Exploiting the United States
consumers' market preference for both hybrid vehicles and minivans,
Defendant undertook in scope an almost unprecedented marketing
campaign to sell its vehicles by claiming that its vehicles are
family friendly and safe.
The vehicles are the 2017 and 2018 models of the Chrysler Pacifica
PHEVs. The Class Vehicles are at risk of exploding or catching fire
due to an unknown root cause, resulting in an immediate risk to the
vehicles' occupants or the property surrounding the vehicles. On
February 11, 2022, after receiving numerous complaints regarding
Class Vehicle fires, the Defendant issued Recall No. 22V-077 for
the Class Vehicles.
The Plaintiff is from Valley Glen, California. Mrs. Reilman
purchased a 2018 Chrysler Pacifica PHEV in 2018. The Plaintiff, for
herself and all others similarly situated, brings this class action
in response to the serious manufacturing defect in their minivans
that can result in catastrophic damages to their vehicles.
The Plaintiff, for herself and all others similarly situated,
brings this action for reimbursement of the purchase price of the
vehicles as well as other relief as deemed proper by this Court,
pursuant to the Unfair Business Practices Act; False Advertising;
Consumers Legal Remedies; the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; breach of
express written warranty; breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; fraud and deceit; negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment; and negligence.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Valley Glen, California.
She purchased a new 2018 Chrysler Pacifica PHEV in 2018 at a
dealership located in Chatsworth, California, Los Angeles County.
Since the Recall, Mrs. Reilman has been left with a vehicle that
could catch fire at any second, resulting in an immediate risk to
her vehicles' occupants, including her husband, or the property
surrounding her vehicle.
FCA US, LLC offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, minivans,
trucks, and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories. As the North American arm of Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles, FCA US, LLC manufactures a range of vehicles
under its Fiat and Chrysler brands, including Jeep, Ram, Dodge,
Alfa Romeo, and Abarth at 45 plants in the United States and
Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Nicholaus H. Woltering, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC .
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
E-maill fbottini@bottinilaw.com
nwoltering@bottinilaw.com
FEDERAL RESERVE: 9/11 Victims Seek Equal Distribution of Assets
---------------------------------------------------------------
In re Approximately $3.5 Billion of Assets on Deposit at the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the Name of Da Afghanistan
Bank, Case No. 1:22-cv-03228-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2022) is a
class action against the Taliban whose claims arise directly out of
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
The Plaintiffs and similarly situated victims of the 9/11 Attacks
seek the equitable distribution of approximately $3.5 billion of
Taliban assets currently on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York (FRBNY) in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB). The
Plaintiffs and hundreds of other victims of the 9/11 Attacks have
pending motions to confirm damages awards of billions of dollars
against the Taliban.
The Taliban is an Islamic fundamentalist, militant Islamist, and
jihadist political movement in Afghanistan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Theresa Trzaskoma, Esq.
Michael Tremonte, Esq.
Max Tanner, Esq.
Kathryn E. Ghotbi, Esq.
SHER TREMONTE LLP
90 Broad Street, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 202-2600
Facsimile: (212) 202-4156
E-mail: ttrzaskoma@shertremonte.com
mtremonte@shertremonte.com
mtanner@shertremonte.com
kghotbi@shertremonte.com
- and –
Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (212) 988-6580
E-mail: si13@nyu.edu
- and –
Megan Wolfe Benett, Esq.
Noah H. Kushlefsky, Esq.
KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 687-8181
Facsimile: (212) 972-9432
E-mail: mbenett@kreindler.com
nkushlefsky@kreindler.com
FEDEX CORP: OverPeck, et al Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERMAN OVERPECK; SHANNON
SOBASZKIEWICZ; and KEVIN STERLING, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the state of
California on behalf of aggrieved employees, v. FEDEX CORPORATION
and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-07553-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the following class under Rules 23(a) and (b)
(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All individuals transporting packages for FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. in California, pursuant to an
"Independent Service Provider Agreement (ISPA)" and/or
"Transportation Service Provider (CSP) and while using a
vehicle that is "operated by FedEx Ground under Department
of Transportation (DOT) regulations, at any time from
December 14, 2014 until the date class notice is provided
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2);" and
2. certifying the following two subclasses within the broader
Class above:
-- Pickup and Delivery (P&D) Subclass:
"All individuals who have performed pickup and services
of the FedEx Ground packages in California, while based
out of a station or hub of FedEx Ground in California,
at any time from December 14, 2014 until the date class
notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2);" and
-- Linehaul Subclass:
"All individuals who have performed Linehaul transports
of the FedEx Ground packages in California, while based
out of a hub or station of FedEx Ground in California,
at any time from December 14, 2014 until resolution of
this action. The class and subclass definitions above
are intended to exclude all individuals who also have
been Owners, Authorized Officers, or Business Contacts
of any CSP contracting with FedEx Ground;" and
3. appointing plaintiffs Kevin Sterling and Shannon
Sobaszkiewicz to represent the class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(4), and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP and
the Law Offices of Jeremy Pasternak, to serve as class
counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) & (4).
FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company
focused on transportation, e-commerce and services based in
Memphis, Tennessee.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MgH9w1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
Deanna Maxfield, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK
354 Pine Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 376-1710
Facsimile: (415) 693-0393
E-mail: jdp@pasternaklaw.com
dm@pasternaklaw.com
- and -
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
FERRANDINO & SON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Knickerbocker Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS KNICKERBOCKER, individually and on behalf of behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERRANDINO & SON, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02225 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as area manager and
territory manager.
FERRANDINO & SON, INC. provides general contracting and maintenance
services. The Company offers landscaping, snow removal, exterior
maintenance, facility service and maintenance, general
construction, and environmental services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, New York 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Lygos Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Flexible Solutions International, Inc. (FSI), relating to its
proposed merger with Lygos, Inc. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/flexible-solutions-international-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Natus Medical Inc. (NTUS), relating to its proposed acquisition by
ArchiMed. Under the terms of the agreement, NTUS shareholders are
expected to receive $33.50 in cash per share they own. Click here
for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/natus-medical-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
MoneyGram, Inc. (MGI), relating to its proposed acquisition by
funds affiliated with Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC. Under the
terms of the agreement, MGI shareholders will receive $11.00 in
cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/case/moneygram-inc.It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.
Huttig Building Products, Inc. (HBP), relating to the proposed
tender offer by Woodgrain, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
HBP shareholders will receive $10.70 in cash per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/huttig-building-products-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
CM Life Sciences, Inc. (CMLF) relating to its proposed merger with
Sema4. Under the terms of the agreement, CMLF will acquire Sema4
through a reverse merger, with Sema4 emerging as a publicly traded
company. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cm-life-sciences-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Zurn Water Solutions Corp. (ZWS), relating to its merger with Elkay
Manufacturing Co. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zurn-water-solutions-corp. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Peeling Paint Class Action Denied Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
lawsuit claiming that drivers' Ford Mustang, Ford Expedition and
Ford Explorer vehicles have aluminum panels that corrode and rust
has been denied class action certification.
Florida federal Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II recently denied the
plaintiffs' request for class action certification for four
different Classes of consumers, Car Complaints reports.
This is just one of a number of Ford corrosion and peeling paint
class action lawsuits going through the courts right now.
The plaintiffs in this case had alleged that all 2013-2018 Ford
Mustang, Ford Expedition and Ford Explorer vehicles are made with
hoods and other panels that corrode.
Plaintiffs Don't Have Standing, Judge Rules
However, Judge Ruiz II reportedly ruled that the plaintiffs could
only assert claims under the state law that their own, personal,
claim arose from.
He said the plaintiffs looking to represent a nationwide Class of
Ford drivers did not have standing to bring claims on behalf of
others who owned makes and models of cars that none of the
plaintiffs themselves had owned or leased.
Ruiz II ruled that the seven named plaintiffs cannot, therefore,
represent Expedition owners, purchasers of Ford vehicles later than
model year 2016, or plaintiffs outside the states of California,
Florida, New York, Indiana and Illinois.
Ruiz II also took issue with the Class definitions, saying, if
certified, the Ford paint peeling class action lawsuit would
include about 800,000 owners, but the vast majority never had any
corrosion or paint problems with their Ford vehicles.
He added that while the plaintiffs tried to prove all the vehicles
share a common design defect, there are huge differences not only
in models and model years, but also in manufacturing techniques
within various production runs of the same model and model years.
He reportedly said it is "nonsensical" for the plaintiffs to ask
the court to ignore these differences.
Ford Faces Multiple Peeling Paint Lawsuits
Meanwhile, in 2019, Ford was hit with a class action lawsuit
alleging Ford F-150 vehicles possess defects in their paint and/or
paint primer and in the aluminum body panels that can cause the
vehicles to corrode prematurely.
In that case, the plaintiff alleged that Ford knew or should have
known about the defect but did not try to provide a remedy, citing
numerous consumer complaints about the issue.
Also in 2019, another Ford Explorer owner filed a class action
lawsuit against the vehicle maker over claims that its hoods are
defective in a way that causes them to corrode prematurely.
The lawsuit says that Ford has made Explorers since 1991, and in
2000, began making the hoods with aluminum as opposed to steel.
Allegedly, by 2011, Ford advertised that the vehicles were sturdy
but lighter than before, because of these frames. However, this
material switch allegedly resulted in the vehicles being much less
durable, because the aluminum hoods quickly corrode.
Do you have a Ford with corrosion or peeling paint issues? Let us
know in the comments!
The plaintiffs are represented by Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, Gordon & Doner, and Robbins Geller.
The Ford Paint Peeling Class Action Lawsuit is Simmons, et al., v.
Ford Motor Company, Case No. N/A, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. [GN]
GEICO: Must Face Adjuster's Overtime Class Action in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave LaChance, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that a
federal judge has granted class action status in a former claim
adjuster's lawsuit accusing GEICO of violating federal and state
overtime laws.
District Court Judge Denise J. Casper has certified the class as
all auto, residential, and catastrophic damage adjusters who worked
for GEICO in Massachusetts at any time between October 2018 and
March 2021.
The suit, Pugliese v. GEICO, seeks unpaid overtime wages that it
says are owed to more than 50 current and former adjusters, as well
as applicable statutory damages.
Former adjuster Marc Pugliese filed suit against GEICO on Oct. 6,
2021 in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, claiming that he
and other adjusters had been pressured not to report the overtime
hours they routinely worked.
Pugliese claims the insurer directed him and other adjusters to
always report working 7.75 hours each workday, or 38.75 hours each
week, even though they "regularly and customarily" put in eight to
10 hours a day, or as many as 50 hours a week.
He also asserts that adjusters were routinely not paid for working
through their 45-minute meal periods.
The under-reporting of hours worked was ordered to "ensure overtime
and, by extension, time-and-one-half overtime wages would not be
due and owing to non-exempt employees like the Plaintiff and other
GEICO Adjusters performing duties in Massachusetts," the complaint
says.
The company used "intimidation tactics and implied adverse
employment consequences" to assure compliance, the suit claims,
contending that GEICO's strategy was to claim that workers who
needed more than 7.75 hours to complete their duties were showing
"poor work performance."
In that way, the suit claims, GEICO created a "company and
class-wide policy and practice" to discourage adjusters from
reporting their true hours worked. It says that the insurer made it
known that it was better for adjusters "to stay quiet and allow
GEICO to steal their hours/wages rather than speak up, complain
about additional compensable work hours, and risk a poor workplace
reputation, negative performance reviews, and risk additional
negative workplace consequences."
The insurer was aware of the inaccuracy of its time sheet system,
through employee complaints, text messages, emails, internal chat
or messaging programs and other means, the suit claims.
Michael Loughlin, a New Hampshire resident who also worked as a
claim adjuster for GEICO for three years in the same geographical
area as Pugliese, was later added to the suit as a second
plaintiff.
GEICO stands accused of violating the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 201, and the Massachusetts Wage Act
(MWA), M.G.L. c. 149 sections 148, 150, and 151.
The carrier has denied all of the allegations, and claimed that
Pugliese "concealed his actual hours of work to cover performance
and productivity deficiencies."
In opposing class action certification, GEICO asserted that "it is
legal for an employer to prohibit or limit overtime," and to
"evaluate its employees' performance based on their efficiency."
Casper countered that argument, noting that case law has held that
"an employer's formal policy or process for reporting overtime will
not protect the employer if the employer prevents or discourages
accurate reporting in practice."
She also rejected GEICO's argument that the adjusters "had
different work habits, abilities and that their workloads varied,
requiring the Court to conduct 'extensive individualized
determinations' for each Plaintiff."
Again citing case law, Casper wrote that "In the present case,
still at the notice stage, Plaintiffs have … made the 'modest
factual showing' that they were subjected to GEICO's company
practice of directing Adjusters to enter 7.75-hour days and
38.75-hour weeks, with a forty-five-minute meal deduction, despite
working more than forty hours a week, without a meal break."
Finally, she was unconvinced by GEICO's argument that the
adjusters' job responsibilities were too dissimilar to for them to
constitute a class. "Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that they
perform similar job duties, the modest showing that they need to
make at this point," Casper wrote.
She ordered GEICO to provide the names, home addresses, email
addresses, and telephone numbers, including home and cellular, for
any of the potential Massachusetts adjusters in the class, so that
they can be notified. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Chevrolet Bolt Battery Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
CollisionRepairmag.com reports that just when General Motors
thought it was clear of the Chevrolet Bolt controversy, the OEM has
yet another class-action lawsuit levelled at it, this time from a
class of concerned Canadians.
The suit currently before British Columbia's Supreme Court alleges
that GM was aware of the defects present in the Chevrolet Bolt EV
and EUV (electric utility vehicle). One of the suit's plaintiffs
claims that GM went forward with marketing and sales of the Bolt,
despite having knowledge of flaws in the vehicle's battery pack
"since at least 2018."
GM is also being accused of misleading drivers by suggesting a
software update would fix the defect, despite having the knowledge
that a battery replacement would be required.
This latest suit was filed on behalf of any Canadian who bought or
leased a 2017 through 2022-model-year Bolt EV or a 2022 Bolt EUV.
"GM and GM Canada have been aware of issues affecting the batteries
in the Class Vehicles since at least 2018," the suit reads.
"Nonetheless, GM and GM Canada have marketed and sold Chevrolet
Bolts with the knowledge that they contain defective and
potentially dangerous batteries without warning customers or
authorized dealerships of the issue."
Last fall, GM spent $1.8 billion (USD) to recall 142,000 Chevrolet
Bolts in the U.S. for a defect in the vehicle's battery pack that
could start a fire.
The class-action lawsuit was filed to the British Columbia Supreme
Court as G. W. Kent Scarborough, v. General Motors LLC, General
Motors of Canada Company. [GN]
GOOGLE: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Maps Monopoly, Waze Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that Alphabet Inc. is facing federal
antitrust litigation in San Francisco over claims that it leverages
its dominance of the GPS navigation market-through Google Maps,
Waze, and related services--to lock app developers into the "Google
ecosystem" and hit them with "egregious" price hikes.
The lawsuit accuses Google of capturing 81% of the market by
offering Maps for free, exploiting its data "treasure trove" to
cement its monopoly, placing restrictive terms on developers that
incorporate its functions, and using other services like search and
YouTube to favor Maps by "self-preferencing."
After Google's control of the "digital-mapping stack" was complete
following its 2013 acquisition of Waze-the only rival offering a
full suite of competing services-it began jacking up prices, which
have risen by 1,400% since 2018, according to the proposed class
action brought by three businesses.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, also indirectly challenges the Waze
deal-which has recently come under belated scrutiny from antitrust
regulators--although it doesn't seek to unwind the transaction.
The tech giant "bought out one of the few companies in the world
making navigable maps while also providing turn-by-turn navigation
service" and "bureaucratized" it "into a failing subsidiary" that
could be used as a "guinea pig" for monetizing GPS services through
advertising, the complaint says.
A spokesperson for Google told Bloomberg Law in a statement that
the company "strongly" disputes "the claims in this case, and we
will vigorously defend ourselves."
"Developers choose to use Google Maps Platform out of many options
because they recognize it provides helpful, high-quality
information," the statement said. "They are also free to use other
mapping services in addition to Google Maps Platform-and many do."
The suit is the latest in a wave of antitrust challenges
confronting Google, including a landmark Justice Department case,
enforcement actions by state attorneys general, scrutiny from
lawmakers at home and abroad, and proposed class actions on behalf
of consumers, developers, and advertisers.
The ongoing court cases take aim at Google's dominance in an array
of online markets, including search, advertising, and app
distribution through its Play Store. The company was most recently
hit with claims that it leverages its Android operating system to
suppress "voice assistant" technology.
The legislative efforts include the American Innovation and Choice
Online Act-sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John Kennedy
(R-La.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)-which would ban dominant
digital platforms like Google and Amazon.com Inc. from favoring
their own services.
Cause of Action: Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; Section 3 of
the Clayton Act; unfair competition.
Relief: Treble damages, an injunction, costs, and fees.
Potential Class Size: App developers "or other types of users"
charged to use Google Maps since April 13, 2018.
Attorneys: The plaintiffs are represented by ESQgo PC, Nematzadeh
PLLC, and Balestriere Fariello.
The case is Dream Big Media Inc. v. Alphabet Inc., N.D. Cal., No.
22-cv-2314, 4/13/22. [GN]
GRAB HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Grab Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: GRAB) investors
who suffered significant losses to submit your losses now. A
securities fraud class action has been filed and investors with
significant losses have an opportunity to lead the case.
Class Period: Nov. 12, 2021 - Mar. 3, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 16, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/GRAB
Contact An Attorney Now: GRAB@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Grab Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: GRAB) Securities Fraud Class
Action:
The litigation focuses on Grab's statements concerning the
sustainability of its growth and business prospects.
More specifically, in Dec. 2021, Grab went public through a
SPAC-merger, touting that Grab "had the largest on-demand driver
supply network," and emphasizing the company's dramatic growth in
the food delivery, digital payments, ride-hailing and financial
services areas through its "super app." The company highlighted its
huge opportunity to grow further in the firm's core businesses in
Southeast Asia and other regions.
According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Grab's
driver supply declined during the third quarter; (2) that, as a
result, Grab continued to invest heavily in driver and consumer
incentives to "preemptively recalibrate driver supply"; and, (3)
that, as a result, the company's financial results would be
adversely impacted, including, among other things, a significant
decline in revenue.
Investors learned the truth, according to the complaint, on Mar. 3,
2022, when Grab announced its first quarterly earnings report as a
public company. The results were dismal. The company reported a 44%
decline in Q4 revenue from the prior year's quarter, and a whopping
loss of $1.1 billion for the period. Management blamed the results
on the company having to increase spending to offer higher
commissions to attract drivers and greater incentives to users and
partners.
This news sent the price of Grab shares sharply lower.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Grab embellished
its growth prospects and failed to disclose known trends," said
Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.
If you invested in Grab and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Grab
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email GRAB@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates
and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
GRINELL SELECT: Geist Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grinell Select
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Travis Geist, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Grinell Select
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00443 (E.D. Mo., April 18,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Grinnell Select Insurance Company --
https://www.grinnellmutual.com/ -- operates as an insurance
company. The Company provides auto, home, farm, and business
insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
GUITAR CENTER: Lockhart Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guitar Center Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Lockhart, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Guitar Center Stores,
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02323-JFW-PD (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Guitar Center -- https://www.guitarcenter.com/ -- is the world's
largest musical instruments retailer.[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
HALIFAX HEALTH: MSPA Claims Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halifax Health Inc.
The case is styled as MSPA Claims 1 LLC, as assignee of Florida
Healthcare Plus, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the state of Florida,
Plaintiff; Florida Healthcare Plus, Party Plaintiff v. Halifax
Health Inc. D B A Halifax Medical Center, a Florida non-profit
corporation, Defendant; Halifax Medical Center, Party Defendant,
Case No. 2022-30505-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., April 18,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Civil - Circuit."
Halifax Health -- https://halifaxhealth.org/ -- has been named a
top 50 hospital in the nation for cardiovascular care for three
consecutive years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andres Rivero, Esq.
201 S Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
The Defendants are represented by:
Holly Woersching Zitzka, Esq.
Cobb Cole
Post Office Box 2491
HELVEY & ASSOCIATES: Face Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
AccountsRecovery.net reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
filed against a company for violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and Regulation F because the itemization date that
was used in a Model Validation Notice that was sent to a plaintiff
was allegedly not one of the five allowed dates approved by the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
A copy of the complaint in the case of Ortiz v. Helvey & Associates
can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant
in regard to an unpaid utility bill. The notice, which was dated
February 16, 2022, included an itemization table that said "As of
February 9, 2022, you owed $340.81."
While collection agencies are not required to detail which of the
five dates it chooses to use to itemize a debt -- last statement
date, last payment date, charge-off date, judgment date, or
transaction date -- the complaint alleges that February 9 is none
of those dates. Using a date that is not permitted under Regulation
F "wrongfully causes the least sophisticated consumer to falsely
believe that the Represented Itemization Date is the Last Statement
Date, the Charge Off Date, the Last Payment Date, the Transaction
Date, or the Judgment Date," according to the complaint. The
complaint does not indicate how the plaintiff knows that none of
those dates correspond to the itemization date and the Model
Validation Notice does not include a reference to indicate which
date is being used.
The class seeks to include anyone in Florida who received a similar
Notice from the defendant.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e,
1692e(2)(A), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA because of the alleged
issue with the itemization date. [GN]
HOME DEPOT: ERISA Class Action Members Seek Judge's Recusal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Sides, writing for Law360, reports that current and former
employees accusing Home Depot Inc. of mismanaging their retirement
savings have asked a Georgia federal judge to recuse himself from
the $140 class action based on the judge's involvement with the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has supported Home Depot in the
action. [GN]
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Homology Medicines,
Inc. ("Homology" or the "Company") of a class action securities
lawsuit.
The lawsuit on behalf of Homology investors has been commenced in
the the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired
certain Homology securities between June 10, 2019 and February 18,
2022. Follow the link below to get more information and be
contacted by a member of our team:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/homology-medicines-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=26079&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Homology Medicines, Inc. NEWS - FIXX NEWS
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) the Company had
overstated the efficacy and risk mitigation of its lead product
candidate, HMI-102; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the
Company would be able to commercialize HMI102 in its present form;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Homology
during the relevant timeframe, you have until May 24, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or
obligation.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/homology-medicines-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=26079&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
ILLINOIS: Harris Exempted From PACER Access Fees in Monroe v. IDOC
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANIAH MONROE, et al., Plaintiffs v. STEVE MEEKS, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00156-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy
J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois issued an order holding that an exemption from
the fees imposed by the Electronic Public Access fee schedule
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States Courts is
warranted for Amanda Harris, MD, MPH.
On April 5, 2022, the Court appointed Dr. Harris, as a Special
Master/Monitor to assess and advise the Court and the parties on
the Defendants' compliance with certain requirements set forth in
the Court's Preliminary Injunctions Review of documents filed in
the case is necessary for Dr. Harris to carry out her
court-appointed duties.
Judge Rosenstengel finds that an exemption from the fees imposed by
the Electronic Public Access fee schedule adopted by the Judicial
Conference of the United States Courts is warranted for Dr. Harris.
As an appointed Special Master/Monitor in the class action prisoner
civil rights case, she falls within the class of users listed in
the fee schedule as being eligible for a fee exemption. Judge
Rosentengel is satisfied that an exemption is necessary in order to
avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to
information.
Accordingly, Amanda Harris, MD, MPH, is exempted from the payment
of fees for access via PACER to the electronic case files
maintained in the Court, to the extent such use is incurred in the
course of the action only. Dr. Harris will not be exempt from the
payment of fees incurred in connection with other uses of the PACER
system in the Court.
Additionally, the following limitations apply:
1. the fee exemption applies only to and is valid only for the
purpose stated;
2. the fee exemption applies only to the electronic case files
of the Court that are available through the PACER system;
3. by accepting the exemption, Dr. Harris agrees not to sell
for profit any data obtained as a result of receiving the
exemption;
4. Dr. Harris is prohibited from transferring any data
obtained as a result of receiving the exemption, except that she
may transfer data to the counsel for the parties and to the Court
as necessary to carry out her monitoring duties; and
5. the exemption is valid only until the action is
terminated.
The exemption may be revoked at the discretion of the Court at any
time.
Dr. Harris must register for a separate pro bono account with PACER
at https://pacer.uscourts.gov. After registering, the PACER Service
Center will issue further written instructions to activate the
account. If needed, Dr. Harris may contact the PACER Service
Representative at 800-676-6856 for assistance.
The Clerk of Court is directed to email a copy of the Order to the
PACER Service Center.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/66wtvdbs from Leagle.com.
LAIRD SUPERFOOD: 'Grossly Overstates' Servings in Creamer Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Laird Superfood "grossly
overstates" the number of servings its creamer products can make,
ripping off its customers, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Lovelynn Gwinn filed the class action complaint against
Laird Superfood, Inc. on Apr. 7 in a New York federal court,
alleging false and deceptive advertising and violations of state
and federal consumer laws.
According to Gwinn, Laird has sold products to consumers based on
the representation that they contain enough powder to make the
number of servings specified on the labels.
"However, pursuant to Defendant's own serving size, the Products do
not contain nearly enough powder to make the number of servings
represented on the Products. In fact, they can make, on average,
just 59% of the servings promised," the class action lawsuit
states.
The allegations relate to Laird Superfood Superfood Creamer
(Unsweetened), Superfood Creamer (Original with Functional
Mushrooms), Superfood Creamer (Original), Superfood Creamer
(Chocolate Mint), Superfood Creamer (Turmeric), Superfood Creamer
(Pumpkin Spice) and Performance Mushrooms.
Laird Superfood Creamer Customer Only Gets 64% of Represented
Product, Class Action Claims
The lawsuit points to representations on the packaging of the
Superfood Creamer Unsweetened, 8oz, that the product makes "About
114 servings" per container if customers use a serving size of 1sp
or 2g.
"However, one teaspoon of the Superfood Creamer Unsweetened does
not weigh 2 grams. It actually weighs approximately 3.1 grams," the
class action states. "In other words, a consumer only receives
approximately 64% of the promised number of servings."
The lawsuit is looking to represent anyone who purchased any of the
products in the United States.
Gwinn is suing under New York General Business Law, and for breach
of warranty and unjust enrichment.
She is seeking certification of the class, an injunction, fees,
costs, damages and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, Nestle is hitting back at customers who say its
Coffee-Mate creamer product doesn't contain all the advertised
servings, saying the customers failed to measure out the teaspoon
servings correctly.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert Abiri. The Laird Superfood
Class Action Lawsuit is Lovely Gwinn v. Laird Superfood, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02883, in the U.S. District Court Southern District of
New York. [GN]
LILIUM NV: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of June 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Lilium N.V. ("Lilium" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
LILM) in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Lilium securities between March 30, 2021 and
March 14, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until June 17, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On March 14, 2022, Iceberg Research published a short report
entitled "Lilium NV – The Losing Horse in the eVTOL [electric
vertical take-off and landing aircraft] Race" (the "Iceberg
Report"). The Iceberg Report asserted, among other issues, that
"[m]any experts have raised serious doubts about" the viability of
the Company's Lilium Jet reaching its objective of "fly[ing] up to
155 miles[,]" citing "its configuration of 36 ducted fans (recently
reduced to 30) that devour power during takeoff and landing
(hovering), and leaves little power for actual flight." The Iceberg
Report also noted that while "Lilium promises its Jet has ready
access to battery cells with energy density of 320-330 Wh/kg[,]"
"[o]ne of the sources it relies on to show these batteries are
within reach is . . . a 34.8% Lilium-owned associated company whose
CEO Sujeet Kumar was accused by General Motors of misrepresenting
battery performance, while at his previous company Envia Systems."
The Iceberg Report further noted that Lilium's Chief Executive
Officer "had no meaningful professional aerospace experience before
starting Lilium in 2015″ and "estimate[d] that Lilium has about
18 months before its cash runs dry."
On this news, Lilium's stock price fell $1.25 per share, or 33.88%,
to close at $2.44 per share on March 14, 2022.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Lilium materially overstates the Lilium Jet's design and
capabilities; (2) Lilium materially overstates the likelihood for
the Lilium Jet's timely certification; (3) Lilium misrepresents its
ability to obtain or create the necessary batteries for the Lilium
Jet; (4) the SPAC-merger would not and did not generate enough cash
to commercially launch the Lilium Jet; (5) Qell Acquisition Corp.
did not engage in proper due diligence regarding the Merger; and
(6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims hat investors
suffered damages.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lilium shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
LILIUM NV: Robbins Geller Rudman Reminds of June 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 19 disclosed that
purchasers of Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:
LILM; LILMW) securities between March 30, 2021 and March 14, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period") have until June 17, 2022 to seek
appointment in Gnanaraj v. Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition
Corp., No. 22-cv-02564 (C.D. Cal.). Commenced on April 18, 2022,
the Lilium class action lawsuit charges Lilium as well as certain
of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Lilium class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Lilium class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 17,
2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Lilium purports to be a next-generation
transportation company focused on developing an electric vertical
take-off-and-landing ("eVTOL") aircraft, the Lilium Jet, for use in
a new type of high-speed air transport system for people and goods.
On March 30, 2021, Qell Acquisition Corp. – a special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC") or blank check company – and Lilium
GmbH announced their business combination. Prior to the September
14, 2021 merger, Lilium's shares traded under the ticker symbol
QELL.
The Lilium class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Lilium materially overstated the Lilium Jet's
design and capabilities; (ii) Lilium materially overstated the
likelihood for the Lilium Jet's timely certification; (iii) Lilium
misrepresented its ability to obtain or create the necessary
batteries for the Lilium Jet; (iv) the SPAC-merger would not and
did not generate enough cash to commercially launch the Lilium Jet;
(v) Qell Acquisition Corp. did not engage in proper due diligence
regarding the merger; and (vi) as a result, defendants' public
statements and statements to journalists were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On March 14, 2022, market analyst Iceberg Research released a
report regarding Lilium entitled "LILIUM NV – THE LOSING HORSE IN
THE EVTOL RACE" which detailed several alleged issues with Lilium.
For example, the Iceberg Research report stated that: (i) regarding
the Lilium Jet's design and capabilities, "[i]ts objective is for
the Jet to fly up to 155 miles" "[b]ut none of Lilium's
demonstrators have flown for more than three minutes even after
seven years of work"; (ii) regarding the Lilium Jet's certification
prospects and timing, "Lilium is likely to miss the 2023 target by
miles" as "[i]t has completed less than 50 test flights on its
fourth and fifth (current) demonstrators"; (iii) regarding Lilium's
ability to obtain or create the necessary batteries for the Lilium
Jet, "[w]e believe that Lilium voluntarily misrepresented its
access to batteries to raise SPAC money, despite not having the
battery technology"; and (iv) regarding the SPAC-merger and its
generation of enough cash to commercially launch the Lilium Jet,
"with a cash runway of 18 months, Lilium will have no choice but to
forcibly dilute shareholders through additional fundraisings, while
its commercialization effort lags peers." On this news, Lilium's
stock price fell by approximately 34%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Lilium
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Lilium class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Lilium class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Lilium class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Lilium class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms
representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is
ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
LILIUM NV: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 18
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition
Corp. (NASDAQ: LILM, LILMW, QELL, QELLU, QELLW) between March 30,
2021 and March 14, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Lilium investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Lilium class action, go
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4894 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Lilium materially overstates the Lilium Jet's design and
capabilities; (2) Lilium materially overstates the likelihood for
the Lilium Jet's timely certification; (3) Lilium misrepresents its
ability to obtain or create the necessary batteries for the Lilium
Jet; (4) the SPAC-merger would not and did not generate enough cash
to commercially launch the Lilium Jet; (5) Qell Acquisition Corp.
did not engage in proper due diligence regarding the Merger; and
(6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 17,
2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4894 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
LIVONIA EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jacques Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARAMUS JACQUES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVONIA EXPRESS GROCERY INC.; LIVONIA FOOD
CORP.; LIVONIA FOOD CORP. V; KAMAL UDDIN; and ALAN "DOE",
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02228 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 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.
Plaintiff Jacques was employed by the Defendants as general
worker.
LIVONIA EXPRESS GROCERY INC. is a retail food store business in of
Brooklyn, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, N.Y. 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
LOWE'S HOME: Merhi Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELIAS MERHI, NICHOLAS SEVILLA, SEAN O'NEIL, JOSE
RAMOS IV, MEGAN CHAMBERS, FARIDEH BABRI, RACHEL WILKINSON, VERONICA
HERNANDEZ, ELLEN BENTON, VIRGINIA LEA ANDERSON, JEFFREY GRAHAM,
MATTHEW STRANSKY, ALEXANDER OLSON, WANDA ALLEN, SEAN CARPENTER,
MARK CRUSOE, JOHN ENRIGHT, PAMELA LEHMAN, TYLER WINTERMOTE,
JENNIFER STRAUSS, TRACY WILKINS, RICHARD SILVAS, GLORIA MOLANO,
DONNA VILLANUEVA, NAEEMAH REHN, and KIMBERLY UNDERWOOD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTER, LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2022-00005954-CU-OE-CTL, 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 April 20, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00545-LL-MDD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to maintain
accurate records, failure to pay all wages earned when due, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
work expenses, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, and
unfair business practices.
Lowe's Home Center, LLC is a retailer of home improvement, building
materials, and home appliances, headquartered in Wilkesboro, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: (949) 451-3800
Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
MDL 2800: Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL Docket No. 2800, No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT (N.D. Ga.),
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
I. Background
The lawsuit is a data breach case. On Sept. 7, 2017, Defendant
Equifax Inc. announced that hackers had stolen the personal and
financial information of nearly 150 million Americans from its
computer networks in one of the largest data breaches in history.
The Data Breach spawned more than 300 class actions against Equifax
Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Equifax Consumer
Services LLC (collectively, "Equifax"), which were consolidated and
transferred to the Court as part of a multidistrict litigation
("MDL"). The Court established separate tracks for the consumer and
financial institution claims and appointed separate legal teams to
lead each track. In the consumer track, the Consumer Plaintiffs and
Equifax reached a class action settlement of all claims arising out
of the Data Breach, which the Court approved, and the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed (except on the narrow issue of incentive awards),
in an order dated March 17, 2020.
A small number of Consumer Plaintiffs (the "Opt-Out Plaintiffs")
who filed complaints in the MDL requested to be excluded from the
class action settlement. Equifax now moves to dismiss their
complaints for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
Opt-Out Plaintiffs Douglas Adams, Alice Flowers, Edward Hutchinson,
Ruby Hutchinson, Audella Patterson, and Raymond Silva assert
contract claims based on Equifax's alleged "commercial
acquiescence" to a "Notice of Default." Following the Data Breach,
each individual mailed Equifax a "Conditional Acceptance" letter
that requested "Proof of Claim" about its knowledge of, response
to, and liability for the incident. After not responding to the
Conditional Acceptance and a second letter, Equifax was sent an
"Affidavit and Notice of Default" stating that Equifax "has
willingly, knowingly, intentionally, or voluntarily agreed and
acquiesced through its non-response to the facts stated herein."
Those facts include that Equifax is "liable to me for damages no
less than a minimum of $75 million." The Opt-Out Plaintiffs allege
that Equifax is now "in default under contract."
In addition to her commercial acquiescence claim, Patterson raises
a claim for negligence based on Equifax's "careless disregard for
safeguarding the sensitive data it collected to unjustly
financially benefit from the data it collected, stored, and sold."
That "careless disregard," she alleges, "put her at risk of
identity theft for the rest of her life." Patterson also asserts a
claim for unjust enrichment on the grounds that Equifax
"prioritized growth and profits over protecting the personal
identifying information ("PII") of consumers," and that Equifax
stands to gain new credit monitoring customers (and thus more
revenue) as a result of the Data Breach. Finally, Patterson accuses
Equifax of violating the California Customer Records Act ("CCRA")
because it failed to publicly disclose the Data Breach in a "timely
and accurate" manner. She alleges that, as a direct and proximate
cause of the delayed notice, she "suffered identity theft and
aggravated identity theft damages," for which she now seeks actual
damages and injunctive relief under the statute.
Three of the opt-out complaints were filed by Christopher Eustice,
on behalf of himself and Cathy Eustice, David Eustice, and Travis
Hubbard (the "Eustice Plaintiffs"), in Texas state court. The
Eustice Plaintiffs raise the following identical, verbatim claims
against Equifax: Willful Injury - Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
Section 623 and Cushman V. Transunion Corporation US Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit Court Case 115 F.3d 220 June 9, 1997,
Filed (D.C. No. 95-cv-01743); Violation(s) of FCRA, including but
not limited to Part (A)(5)(B)(ii) and FCRA Section 611 Part (A)(1);
Breach of Oral Contract for a Service not lasting more than a year
and Breach of Written Contract; Violations(s) of Texas Business and
Commerce Code (TBCC) ch. 20; and Personal Injury Tort Claims.
The complaints contain no factual assertions in support of these
claims; instead, Christopher Eustice attaches a list of press
statements, articles, and other documents with "relevant
information to the breach of his client's private information." In
an accompanying affidavit, Christopher Eustice states that the
Equifax "vulnerability was known for at least four months to the
cyber security industry before Equifax was hacked and took remedial
measures to protect consumer information." The Eustice Plaintiffs
seek $9,975 each in monetary damages.
Brett Joshpe and Richard Khalaf bring claims for negligence and
violations of New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") Section 349
and the FCRA. They have allegedly "suffered financial, emotional
and reputational damages" as "a direct and proximate result of the
data breach." Among their stated damages, Joshpe and Khalaf have
received harassing and fraudulent phone calls; their credit ratings
have been damaged such that Joshpe was denied a credit card in
December 2018; Joshpe's PayPal account has been used in
unauthorized transactions; fraudulent bank and credit card accounts
have been opened in Joshpe's name; Khalaf has been targeted with
check, credit card, and tax return fraud; and Joshpe's personal
Gmail account has been hacked and used to send embarrassing
messages to business and personal contacts. Joshpe and Khalaf also
claim to have expended "significant emotional and financial
resources" in an unsuccessful effort to mitigate the effects of the
Data Breach. They seek no less than $1 million in monetary damages
on each count as well as litigation expenses, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief.
Finally, Anna Lee filed an action in New York state court asserting
claims for negligence and violations of NYGBL Section 349 and the
FCRA. Her injuries include "the loss of her legally protected
interest in the confidentiality and privacy of her Personal
Information" as well as "a significant risk of harm or threat of
harm in the future," citing unspecified reports that information
from the Data Breach is for sale on the Dark Web. Lee has also
allegedly "spent numerous hours monitoring her accounts and
addressing issues arising from the Data Breach." Her complaint
requests damages in the amount of $25,000.
II. Discussion
A. Choice of Law
At the outset, the Parties dispute which state's law should govern
the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' common law claims. On the one hand, Joshpe
and Khalaf contend that, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, the
transferee court in an MDL must apply the state law that the
transferor court would have applied, including its choice-of-law
rules. They then summarily conclude that New York law governs their
negligence claims, without showing any of the choice-of-law
analysis required to reach that result. On the other hand, Equifax
takes the position that New York's choice-of-law rules warrant the
application of Georgia substantive law.
In tort cases, New York has adopted an "interest analysis" that is
designed "to give controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction
which, because of its relationship or contact with the occurrence
or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue
raised in the litigation." Relevant factors include "the contacts
of the parties and occurrences with each jurisdiction the policies
underlying each jurisdiction's rules, the strength of the
governmental interests embodied in these policies, and the extent
to which these interests are implicated by the contacts."
Judge Thrash concludes that Joshpe's and Khalaf's negligence claims
are governed by Georgia, not New York, law. Aside from Joshpe and
Khalaf, Adams is the only other Opt-Out Plaintiff who filed a
response (though untimely) to Equifax's Motion to Dismiss. Because
he does not object to Equifax's choice-of-law analysis, Judge
Thrash also applies Georgia law to his and the non-responsive
Opt-Out Plaintiffs' common law claims.
B. Rule 8's Pleading Standard
Next, Equifax contends that the complaints of Adams, Flowers, E.
Hutchinson, R. Hutchinson, Patterson, Silva, and the Eustice
Plaintiffs should be dismissed under Rule 8. Under Rule 8(a)(2), a
plaintiff must provide "a short and plain statement of the claim"
showing that he is entitled to relief. The purpose of this
requirement is to "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests." Although a complaint need
not include detailed factual allegations, the "grounds" must be
"more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do." In cases involving
pro se plaintiffs such as the present one, courts must hold their
complaints, however inartfully pleaded, "to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Judge Thrash opines that without a doubt, Rule 8 does not allow the
Eustice Plaintiffs to rely on conclusory labels, absent any
substantive factual allegations, to make out their claims against
Equifax. Although pro se complaints are graded on a more lenient
curve, it is not the Court's role "to serve as de facto counsel for
a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to
sustain an action." None of the Eustice Plaintiffs have filed a
response to Equifax's Motion to Dismiss objecting to dismissal of
their complaints or requesting an opportunity to replead their
claims. Judge Thrash thus concludes that their complaints should be
dismissed under Rule 8(a)(2).
C. Commercial Acquiescence
Shifting focus to Rule 12(b)(6), Equifax argues that all of the
commercial acquiescence claims should be dismissed because Equifax
did not agree to any contract. As described, several of the Opt-Out
Plaintiffs claim that Equifax has "quietly agreed" to the fact and
amount of its liability for the Data Breach, as set forth in a
series of letters. But silence, standing alone, does not
demonstrate the "mutual assent or meeting of the minds" required to
create an enforceable contract. Under Georgia's objective theory of
intent, the Opt-Out Plaintiffs have not alleged facts from which a
reasonable person could interpret Equifax's non-response as a
manifestation of assent. Therefore, Judge Thrash dismisses the
commercial acquiescence claims of Adams, Flowers, E. Hutchinson, R.
Hutchinson, Patterson, and Silva.
D. Unjust Enrichment
Equifax moves to dismiss Patterson's unjust enrichment claim for
failure "to allege that she conferred a benefit on Equifax." The
theory of unjust enrichment applies when there is no legal contract
and when there has been a benefit conferred which would result in
an unjust enrichment unless compensated." To show that Equifax has
financially benefited from the Data Breach, Patterson cites
statements from former Equifax Chief Executive Officer Richard
Smith and United States Senator Elizabeth Warren speculating that
Equifax could boost revenue from its credit monitoring services due
to the Data Breach. Beyond that hypothetical scenario, though,
Patterson does not allege that she has paid Equifax for any product
or service, or that she has conferred any other type of benefit on
the company. Accordingly, her complaint fails to state a claim for
unjust enrichment.
E. Negligence
Equifax seeks to dismiss the negligence claims of Joshpe, Khalaf,
Lee, and Patterson on the grounds that they have not sufficiently
alleged three of the four essential elements: Duty of care, injury,
and proximate causation.
Judge Thrash finds that (i) as the Court held with respect to the
Consumer Plaintiffs, the alleged foreseeability of the Data Breach
supports a duty of care on Equifax's parts to safeguard the
personal data in its custody; (ii) the allegations, accepted as
true, are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss on the issue of
injury; and (iii) the allegations show only that criminal hackers
stole the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' sensitive personal data, not that
Equifax actively transmitted any consumer reports to a third party
and courts have concluded that such information constitutes "header
information," not a consumer report, because it does not bear on an
individual's credit worthiness. For these reasons, Judge Thrash
dismisses the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' claims under FCRA Sections 1681b
and 1681e.
G. Suggestion for Remand
Following the partial grant of Equifax's Motion to Dismiss, the
only claims remaining in the MDL are those asserted by Joshpe,
Khalaf, Lee, and Patterson for negligence and violations of state
consumer protection statutes.
Judge Thrash suggests that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation remand these claims to their transferor courts for final
resolution. He says, the Consumer Plaintiffs and Equifax have
reached a class action settlement of all claims arising out of the
Data Breach, which was approved more than two years ago and upheld
in substantial part on appeal. Also, although there is some factual
and legal overlap in the remaining cases, all four involve claims
under either New York or California law that are inherently less
familiar to the Court than the transferor courts. Accordingly,
Judge Thrash denies the Motion to Dismiss as to Joshpe's, Khalaf's,
and Lee's NYGBL Section 349 claims and Patterson's CCRA claim
without prejudice.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Thrash granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss with respect to Douglas Adams [No.
1:19-cv-3682-TWT], Alice Flowers [No. 1:10-cv-5703-TWT], Edward
Hutchinson [No. 1:19-cv-5706-TWT], Ruby Hutchinson [No.
1:19-cv-5705-TWT], Raymond Silva [No. 1:19-cv-3825-TWT],
Christopher Eustice and Cathy Eustice [No. 1:19-cv-3128-TWT],
Christopher Eustice and David Eustice [No. 1:19-cv-3129-TWT], and
Christopher Eustice and Travis Hubbard [No. 1:19-cv-3130-TWT]. The
Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 1220] with respect to Audella Patterson [No.
1:19-cv-5529], Brett Joshpe [No. 1:19-cv-3595-TWT], Richard Khalaf
[No. 1:19-cv-3830], and Anna Lee [No. 1:18-cv-4698-TWT].
Judge Thrash suggested to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation that the actions of Audella Patterson [No.
1:19-cv-5529](Central District of California), Brett Joshpe [No.
1:19-cv-3595-TWT](Southern District of New York), Richard Khalaf
[No. 1:19-cv-3830](Southern District of New York), and Anna Lee
[No. 1:18-cv-4698-TWT](Eastern District of New York) be remanded to
the transferor courts as indicated for further proceedings.
The present Order essentially terminates the MDL proceeding.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/49yb4h93 from Leagle.com.
MDL 2836: DDP's Bid to Certify Class in Zetia Antitrust Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: ZETIA (EZETIMIBE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No.
2:18md2836 (E.D. Va.), Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk
Division, denied the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
for Class Certification.
I. Background
The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") allege that that the Merck
and Glenmark Defendants entered into an unlawful and
anticompetitive agreement to resolve their earlier patent dispute
concerning the cholesterol-reducing drug ezetimibe. The proposed
class consists largely of prescription drug wholesale purchasers
and distributors (or their assignees) who allegedly overpaid for
Zetia, Merck's branded version of the drug. DPPs claim that the
unlawful agreement delayed market entry of generic ezetimibe,
forcing them to purchase Zetia from Merck at artificially inflated
prices. They seek damages for the overpayment caused by Defendants'
allegedly monopolistic behavior.
Judge Smith referred DPPs' first motion for class certification to
Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller for a report and recommendation
on Feb. 25, 2020. Judge Miller recommended certifying the class. On
Aug. 21, 2020, the Court adopted this recommendation and granted
the DPPs motion.
Shortly thereafter, the Defendants appealed, and the Fourth Circuit
vacated and remanded the certification Order, concluding that the
Court erred by "improperly looking to the impracticability of
individual suits rather than joinder," when assessing whether the
class was "so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1).
The circuit court explained that "on remand, the district court
should consider whether judicial economy favors either a class
action or joinder." It also noted that the DPPs made "no showing
that it would be uneconomical for smaller claimaints to be
individually joined," and that they "must bring to bear some
evidence" to make this showing. Because the remand was limited to
the issue of numerosity, the parties' submissions, Judge Miller's
R&R, and the Memorandum Order explores only that aspect of the Rule
23 analysis.
The DPPs filed the instant Motion on Sept. 24, 2021, along with a
Memorandum in Support. They move the Court to certify the following
class of Plaintiffs: All persons or entities in the United States
or its territories that purchased Zetia in any form directly from
Merck, or any agents, predecessors, or successors thereof from
November 15, 2014 until June 11, 2017.
The DPPs also request to serve as class representatives. Along with
their Motion, DPPs filed five declarations, including those of
Rachel A. Downey, the DPPs' counsel; Charlie Empson , Director of
Finance and Accounting at Pharmacy Buying Association, Inc.
("PBA"), a proposed class member; the Honorable Shira A.
Scheindlin, a retired U.S. District Judge; and Rafael Emmanuelli,
co-owner of Caribe Rx Services, Inc., another proposed class
member. Empson, Emmanuelli, and Scheindlin were later deposed by
the Defendants for the purpose of explaining the contents of their
declarations.
Following these depositions, the Defendants filed a Response in
Opposition to the DPPs' Motion on Oct. 22, 2021. The DPPs replied
on Oct. 28, 2021. On Nov. 8, 2021, Juduge Smith referred the Motion
to Judge Miller for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b). Judge Miller held a hearing on the Motion on Jan. 4, 2022,
and issued the R&R on Jan. 25, 2022.
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying DPPs' Motion because they
"have not met their burden to establish that 'the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.'" The DPPs
filed their Objections on Feb. 8, 2022, and the Defendants filed
their Response on Feb. 22, 2022. Having been fully briefed, the
DPPs' Motion and Objections are ripe for disposition.
II. Discussion
Though DPPs represent that they "lodge no objection to much of the
R&R, they argue that several missteps require the Court to reject
it." Upon de novo review of the record and DPP's Objections to the
R&R, these Objections are overruled, Judge Smith holds. She says,
while the R&R more than adequately explains why DPPs failed to
satisfy their burden under Rule 23's numerosity requirement, and
therefore why certification is not appropriate, she addresses the
key aspects of DPPs' Objections in more detail.
A. Size of Putative Class
As a preliminary issue, the DPPs object to the number of class
members the Magistrate Judge considered in his analysis of their
Motion. While the R&R's analysis was based on a putative class size
of 35, the DPPs argue that "the class technically had 42 members,"
and explain that "since the R&R issued, they have learned of three
more assignee class members, making the analysis relevant for a
class of 38 (and a technical total of 45)." The DPPs represent that
Wegmans; Meijer, Inc.; and Giant Eagle, Inc. hold claims assigned
by McKesson Corp. relating to McKesson's purchase of Zetia that it
later resold to the trio. Each of the three entities acquired their
claims in either 2018 or 2020.
Judge Smith declines the DPPs unexplained eleventh-hour invitation
to receive new evidence. She says, the DPPs offer no meaningful
justification for their untimely discovery of three new potential
class members, more than two years after they first moved for class
certification, and over 18 months after the latest identified
assignment occurred. Accordingly, Judge Smith will not exercise
discretion to consider the new declarations, and will assess the
DPPs' Objections using the same putative class size that Judge
Miller considered: 35.
B. Impracticability Standard
The DPPs next argue that the R&R applies an erroneous standard for
assessing whether joinder of all potential class members is
"impracticable" in the case. Though they concede that the "R&R's
legal standard section correctly states the law," they submit that
the Magistrate Judge applied an incorrect standard in his analysis,
requiring DPPs to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs are incapable of
joining.
Judge Smith opines that neither Emmanuelli nor Empson conducted any
meaningful cost-benefit analysis to assess the likely economic
effect of suing the Defendants before signing their declarations.
Indeed, neither declarant had done any significant investigation
into the value of their employer's claims in the case, making it
difficult to assess whether "litigating as a class -- rather than
joinder -- would offer" more than "marginal economic benefits." In
sum, the R&R applied the correct legal standard for assessing
impracticability of joinder under Rule 2s3(a)(1).
C. Consideration of Relative Size of Claims
The DPPs next object to the R&R's purported adoption of a "new
factor that assesses how much of the claim would survive by joining
some, but not all, members." In the R&R, Judge Miller observes that
"there is little danger that denying class certification will
result in the Defendants escaping liability" simply because the
Defendants allegedly "illegal behavior is spread thinly across many
parties."
The DPPs note that Judge Miller found "'significant' for Rule
23(a)(1) analysis," the fact that proposed class members would
likely pursue 95% of the total value of putative DPP class claims
through joinder. They also point out that the R&R referenced other
plaintiffs' groups challenging the Defendants' allegedly
anticompetitive activity. In the DPPs' view, it was improper for
the court to consider these issues when analyzing whether they made
the showing demanded under Rule 23(a)(1).
Judge Smith disagrees. She opines, when analyzing whether the DPPs'
35 member proposed class should be certified, it was proper to
examine, as one factor among many, whether denying certification
would permit allegedly wrongful conduct to go unpunished. As the
R&R points out, the Third Circuit in In re Modafinil Antitrust
Litig., 837 F.3d 238, 254 (3d Cir. 2016), also considered the
potential ramifications for deterrence when applying the numerosity
standard in a similar pharmaceutical antitrust case. Therefore,
noting that a large percentage of the proposed class members'
claims are likely to be pursued through joinder, and that similar
claims addressing the same wrongdoing are also being pursued by
other plaintiffs, was not error. Instead, it reflected the
Magistrate Judge's consideration of an important purpose the class
vehicle serves.
D. Putative Class Members' Ability and Motivation to Join
When discussing the proposed class members' ability and motivation
to litigate, the Fourth Circuit in In re Zetia (Ezetimibe)
Antitrust Litig.) [Zetia III], 7 F.4th 227, 232, 236 (4th Cir.
2021), explained that the DPPs "must do more than simply show that
litigating as a class -- rather than joinder -- would offer
marginal economic benefits," that it saw "little evidence in the
record to support this point," and that it "expected that the
district court would require the DPPs to adduce such evidence on
remand to establish impracticability." The DPPs argue that they
have now satisfactorily developed the record, and that the
"supplemental evidence reinforces that the class action mechanism
is necessary to protect the interests of the smaller putative class
members." However, the DPPs' showing on this point fails to satisfy
their burden under the clarified numerosity standard outlined in
Zetia III.
Judge Smith opines that (i) the R&R assigned the appropriate weight
to each aspect of the evidence DPPs presented concerning why
business judgment may counsel against joining this litigation
following denial of class certification; (ii) concluding that the
declarations, in combination with the rest of the record, failed to
demonstrate "that putative class members lack economic motivation
to litigate Zetia claims" absent class certification was entirely
appropriate; (iii) litigating as absent class members would do
little to shield absent members of the proposed class, as the
Defendants already know who they are; and (iv) there is no
suggestion in the R&R that declarations were a required aspect of
the evidentiary threshold DPPs needed to cross in this
totality-of-the-circumstances assessment. In sum, no aspect of the
R&R established an unreasonable or unattainable standard for DPPs
to satisfy.
E. Burden on Judicial Resources
Finally, the DPPs take issue with multiple aspects of the R&R's
analysis of the relevant judicial economy considerations.
Judge Smith concludes, as the Magistrate Judge did, that DPPs
failed to adduce evidence sufficient to show that judicial economy
concerns merit class certification. She finds that (i) she agrees
that "any extra burden on the docket threatened by joinder here is
incremental" compared to the already very complex nature of the
case; (ii) the DPPs have offered little to quantify the additional
burden of a traditional trial with joined parties, many of whom
will likely be represented by shared counsel; (iii) use of remote
depositions could alleviate some of the burdens attendant to live,
in-person testimony at trial; (iv) the R&R properly considered
Emmanuelli's statement, affording it the appropriate weight; and
(v) video conferencing could be effectively employed by the parties
to minimize this potential burden through remote depositions.
III. Conclusion
Following a de novo review of the record and the Objections to the
R&R, Judge Smith adopted in full the findings and recommendations
set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned
Report and Recommendation filed on Jan. 25, 2022. Therefore, she
overruled the DPPs' Objections, and denied the Motion. The Clerk is
directed to send a copy of the Opinion to the counsel for all
parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4b2pk48x from Leagle.com.
META PLATFORMS: Walker VPPA Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUSTIN WALKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No.
22-CIV-01176, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 20, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-02442 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
federal Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing its digital
subscribers' personally identifiable information without proper
consent.
Meta Platforms, Inc. is an American multinational technology
conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Laurie Edelstein, Esq.
Paige Zielinski, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
455 Market Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (628) 267-6800
Facsimile: (628) 267-6859
E-mail: ledelstein@jenner.com
pzielinski@jenner.com
- and –
John Flynn, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 639-6000
Facsimile: (202) 639-6066
E-mail: jflynn@jenner.com
META PLATFORMS: Wants Appellate Court to Overturn Class Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Constantine von Hoffman, writing for Martech, reports that Meta is
asking an appellate court to overturn a ruling granting
class-action status to a lawsuit claiming Facebook inflated
advertising numbers.
The company filed papers on April 15 with the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals for permission to immediately appeal a decision by U.S.
District Court Judge James Donato granting class-action status to
the plaintiffs, DZ Reserve and Max Martialis.
Donato ruled on March 29th that the companies could proceed with
claims on behalf of U.S. advertisers who used Facebook's Ad Manager
or Power Editor to purchase ads on Facebook or Instagram after
August 15, 2014.
Meta says that, left unchanged, the class would total more than 3
million advertisers. In court papers the company argues Donato's
decision is not in line with other decisions about class actions:
"That conflict is of exceptional importance, because class actions
brought by online advertisers are a fast-growing category of
putative class claims, and often involve millions of class members,
seeking billions of dollars in damages."
In his decision, Donato rejected the company's argument that the
class was too diverse, because it included "large sophisticated
corporations" as well as individuals and small businesses. The
judge said it made sense for individuals to sue as a group because
"no reasonable person" would sue Meta on their own to recover at
most a $32 price premium.
Meta's filing indicates that it may settle the case if its appeal
is not granted, as the plaintiffs are asking for over $7 billion in
class-wide damages: "Claimed damages in that amount almost never
proceed to trial before a jury," adding that the possibility of a
nine-figure verdict creates "inexorable settlement pressure."
The suit, originally filed in August 2018, claims Facebook induced
advertisers to purchase more ads -- and pay higher prices for them
-- by inflating the number of users who might see the ads. It
pointed to a report by the Video Advertising Bureau, which said in
2017 Facebook's estimates of audience reach in every U.S. state
were higher than the states' populations. The suit was later
amended to include the allegation that Facebook employees had been
aware of complaints about the metric since 2015.
Meta's court papers claim estimates about the potential reach of
campaigns aren't guarantees, and don't have an impact on billing.
Why we care. Facebook is the biggest fish when it comes to social
media in the U.S. Audience size is one of the foundational metrics
for determining ad prices. While other media have third-party
certification of these numbers (Nielsen, Audit Bureau of
Circulation, etc.), there is no such cerification for Facebook.
Given that, lawsuits like this seem all but inevitable. [GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Buford Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Alexis Buford, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00183-SMD (M.D. Ala., April 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. also referred to as Midland Credit
-- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is one of the largest debt
collection companies in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (512) 425-4036
MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Young Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAYTON YOUNG and LOUIS WILLIAMS, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves of and others similarly situated v. MONITRONICS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a BRINKS HOME, BRINKS HOME SECURITY, MONI,
and MONI SMART SECURITY, and MONITRONICS SECURITY LP, Case No.
2:22-cv-02243-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn., April 19, 2022)is a collective
action lawsuit brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and
former employees were classified as hourly-paid alarm technicians.
The Plaintiffs allege that they and similarly situated alarm
technicians worked "off-the-clock" at the direction and inducement
of Defendants. However, the Defendants failed to record such "off
the clock" compensable time into its time keeping system (or edited
such time out of its time keeping system) in order to save money,
stay within or below its projected and budgeted labor cost and
increase its profits.[BN]
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the following
similarly situated persons:
"All current and former hourly-paid employees classified by
Defendants as hourly-paid alarm technicians and who were
employed by Defendants in the United States at any time during
the applicable limitations period covered by this Collective
Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA violations and, three
years for willful FLSA violations) up to and including the date
of final judgment in this matter, and who are Named Plaintiffs
or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA."
The Defendants provide home security services for residential
customers throughout the United States including Arizona, Georgia,
Illinois, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Oklahoma, Michigan,
New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Utah, Rhode Island, Virginia,
Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina,
California, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Washington under the
brand names, Brinks Home Security and Brinks Home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
MONROE & MAIN: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe & Main, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Monroe & Main, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03115 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC --
https://www.farmers.com/financial/ -- operates as an investment
advisory firm.[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
MVM INC: Underpays Travel Youth Care Workers, Anderson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON ANDERSON, DATARIK BOX, ISABEL CORREA, LILY GALANIS,
KASANDRA HALL, HARMONY HUNT, LAKEITHSHA KING, JULIO MENDOZA, AMANDA
THOMAS and CYNTHIA VAZQUE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MVM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00015 (W.D. Tex., April 20, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated workers overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as travel youth care
workers in Texas.
MVM, Inc. is a professional services company headquartered in
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
NETFLIX RUSSIA: Users Launch Class Action Against Streaming Giant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
q107.com reports that Russian users of Netflix have launched a
class action lawsuit against the streaming giant for leaving the
Russian market, demanding 60 million roubles ($726,000) in
compensation, the RIA news agency reported.
Netflix Inc said in March that it suspended its service in Russia
and had temporarily stopped all future projects and acquisitions in
the country as it assessed the impact of Moscow's invasion of
Ukraine.
"Today, a law firm representing the interests of Netflix users
filed a class action lawsuit against the American Netflix service
with the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow," RIA cited law
firm Chernyshov, Lukoyanov & Partners as saying.
"The reason for the lawsuit was a violation of Russian users'
rights due to Netflix's unilateral refusal to provide services in
Russia."
Netflix did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Scores of foreign companies have announced temporary shutdowns of
stores and factories in Russia or said they were leaving for good
since Moscow began what it calls "a special military operation" in
Ukraine on Feb. 24. Ukraine and the West say Russia launched an
unprovoked war of aggression against its neighbor. [GN]
NORTH SHORE HOME: St. John Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Shore Home Care
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Andrea St. John, on behalf of
herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. North Shore Home Care LLC, Melody Lynch, individually,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01963 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
North Shore Compassionate Care -- http://northshorecaring.com/--
provides home care and companion / homemaker services to seniors
and others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel David Engelson, Esq.
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 853-1450
Email: sengelson@billhornlaw.com
jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Settles CBS Shareholders' Class Suit for $14.75MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner and Helen Coster, writing for Reuters, report that
Paramount Global (PARA.O) has agreed to pay $14.75 million to
shareholders of the former CBS Corp in a proposed class action
claiming the company's failure to disclose sexual misconduct
allegations against former CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves
artificially inflated the value of its stock.
Lawyers for Paramount, Moonves and the plaintiffs filed a proposed
settlement agreement in Manhattan federal court on April 15. CBS
and Moonves had denied that they misled investors.
CBS merged with sister company Viacom Inc in December 2019. The
merged company was called ViacomCBS until February, when it changed
its name to Paramount Global. read more
Amid the #MeToo movement, more than a dozen women accused Moonves
of harassment and intimidation, including exposing himself and
pressuring women for sex. Moonves has denied wrongdoing and said
the relationships were consensual.
Moonves resigned under pressure in September 2018; that December
CBS said it had fired him for cause and denied a $120 million
severance package, following a board review of the findings of an
investigation into Moonves' behavior and the CBS culture conducted
by two law firms hired by CBS.
CBS and lawyers for Moonves did not immediately respond to requests
for comment. The plaintiffs' lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd did not immediately respond.
A group of shareholders sued in 2018. They accused CBS and Moonves
of misleading investors by not initially disclosing allegations
against him and making public statements in support of #MeToo.
Moonves at a 2017 industry conference, for example, called #MeToo
"a watershed moment" and said, "I think it's important that a
company's culture will not allow for this . . . There's a lot we
didn't know."
In 2020, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni in Manhattan found
that statement was the only one cited by the plaintiffs that could
have misled investors, and dismissed other claims. [GN]
PEPSICO INC: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Joshua Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00184 (E.D. Va., April
5, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and the
non-overtime-exempt workers like him in violation of the Virginia
Overtime Wage Act.
The Defendant's timekeeping and payroll systems were affect by the
hack of Kronos in 2021. The hack led to problems in timekeeping and
payroll throughout the Defendant's organization. As a result, the
Defendant's workers who were not exempt from the overtime
requirements under Virginia law were not paid for all hours worked
ot were not paid their proper overtime premium after the onset
Kronos hack. the Defendant could have easily implements a system
for recoding hours and paying waes to non-exempt employees until
issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead,
the Defendant used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimated
to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these non-exempt
hourly and salaried employees.
The Plaintiff is a PepsiCo worker since May 2015.
PepsiCo is a food, snack, and beverage corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara Tighe, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
4250 North Fairfax Drive, Ste. 635
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (571) 357-7598
Email: ttighe@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Phone: 310 928 1228
Email: matt@parmet.law
PERMANENT GENERAL: Judge Certifies Auto Policy Fee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that a subsidiary of American Family
Insurance now faces a federal class-action lawsuit in Florida,
alleging it regularly charged auto policyholders a cancellation fee
that was never mentioned in the policy.
The size of the class will be at least 100 people and will include
everyone who was insured under Permanent General Assurance's
non-standard auto coverage from 2015 to 2020, when the initial
complaint was filed, U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas, of
Miami, said in his order certifying the class.
The plaintiffs, represented by the Zebersky, Payne, Shaw, Lewenz
firm in Fort Lauderdale, and others, charge that the policy
promised to refund 90% of the "pro-rata unearned premium" if the
motorist cancels the policy. Instead, Permanent General charged a
"short rate cancellation premium" based on the amount of premiums
that were never paid by the insureds, the amended complaint reads.
The suit gave this example: Plaintiff Dorine Conner renewed her
policy in 2019 and timely paid her $259 monthly premiums. When she
canceled, she expected a refund of $240 in unearned premium, minus
the 10% as stated in the policy. Instead, she was charged an $89
penalty and received only $153 from the insurer.
For another driver, Permanent General assessed a penalty of $620 --
higher than the policyholder's monthly premium, the suit alleges.
The complaint alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment by the
insurer, and unfair business practices.
The judge found that the plaintiff's motion to certify the case met
all the case law requirements for a class.
"The Court rejects Defendant's argument that class certification is
inappropriate because 'not all Plaintiffs have a common contract,'"
the judge noted. "First, the suggestion that the insurance
application, not the policy, is the contract is a distinction
without a difference. It is the insurance application and the
insurance policy which together constitute the contract."
Non-standard auto policies are short-term policies often purchased
by people who have difficulty affording coverage through standard
carriers, and cancellations are common, the court said.
Permanent General has denied the allegations. The carrier's
attorneys also argued that Conner could not represent the class
because she was convicted of kidnapping in 2001 and served 12 years
in prison.
"Based on her serving significant time in prison, Connor does not
possess the personal characteristics and integrity to fulfill the
fiduciary role of class representative," the company argued.
The judge said that argument "is wholly without merit," and that a
criminal conviction does not automatically disqualify a class
representative.
This is not the first time that an American Family Mutual Insurance
unit has been accused of underpaying.
In February, attorneys in Illinois proposed a class action against
American Family for allegedly using a "typical negotiation" method
of determining the value of totaled vehicles. The plaintiffs said
the method was unlawful and significantly undervalued their
payments in claims.
That suit was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, in early
April, court records show. No explanation was given. [GN]
PHL VARIABLE: Kenney Files Suit in D. Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHL Variable
Insurance Company. The case is styled as James Kenney, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. PHL Variable Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00552-OAW (D. Conn., April 15, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
PHL Variable Insurance Company operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers life insurance and annuity services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Phone: (860) 513-2939
Email: craabe@ikrlaw.com
PNC MERCHANT: $10MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Buckley LLP disclosed that on April 11, the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted final approval to a $10
million class action settlement resolving allegations that a
defendant bank breached its payment card processing servicing
contracts with merchants by imposing excessive fees without
contractually required notice. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged
that the defendant was "unjustly enriched by imposing early
termination fees that constituted unlawful penalties." The
settlement class includes over 200,000 merchants that entered into
a payment card processing servicing contract with the defendant and
who paid at least one of the fees underlying the litigation from
October 2011 to the settlement date. Those fees include annual
fees, early termination fees, and paper statement fees. According
to the memorandum in support of the unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement, the deal would provide
$10 million in cash to the settlement class, and attorneys
representing the class can seek up to one-third of that fund in
attorneys' fees. In addition, each of the three class
representatives will be granted $10,000 service awards, per the
motion.
The case was filed against PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P.
A copy of the Memorandum is available at:
https://buckleyfirm.com/sites/default/files/Buckley%20InfoBytes%20-%20Inkwel%20v%20PNC%20-%20Memo%20of%20Law%20for%20Unopposed%20Motion-%202022.02.07.pdf
[GN]
PROCESS RETAIL: Olivera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Olivera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PROCESS RETAIL GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00472
(E.D. Wis., April 18, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or
agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief
the Court may deem appropriate.
The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic
timeclock rounding) from the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and
post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of
said employees and to the benefit of the Defendant, in violation of
the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its
hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed
each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of
pay, was intentional, willful, and violated the FLSA and the WWPCL,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Assembler.
The Defendant designs and manufactures point of sale displays.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Clayton Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHERI CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
1:21-cv-24426, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on April 20, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-01996-MHW-CMV to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida and Arkansas Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Acts,
unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and breach of
express warranty by failing to disclose to its consumers that its
over-the-counter aerosol antiperspirant, shampoo, and conditioner
products contain benzene, a known human carcinogen.
The Procter & Gamble Company is a manufacturer of consumer
products, with its principal place of business at 1 P&G Plaza,
Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzhak Levin, Esq.
LEVIN LITIGATION, PLLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Ste. 311
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 678-5155
Facsimile: (954) 678-5156
E-mail: ylevin@levinlitigation.com
- and –
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
- and –
Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
Layne Hilton, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 524-5777
E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
l.hilton@kanner-law.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Amount of Paper Towels
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an unhappy
customer is complaining Bounty lied to her about the amount of
paper towels she was buying.
A class action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble filed April 8 in
California federal court says the math it used to declare customers
were getting bang for their buck doesn't add up. Lawyers at Bursor
& Fisher filed the case.
On packaging that claims 12 "singles plus" select-a-size rolls
equal 18 regular rolls, P&G stated a regular roll was equal to 83
sheets. But on the company's website, P&G claims a regular roll is
63 sheets, the suit says.
"By short-changing its Select-A-Size multi-roll paper towel
packages, P&G has saved millions of dollars in the cost of goods
sold and was unjustly enriched by taking payment for more product
than it delivers," the suit says.
Thomas, a California resident, seeks to lead a nationwide class of
consumers. [GN]
QUALITY TRAILER: Joint Bid for Conditional Class Cert. OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAO Q. VO, Individually
and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. QUALITY
TRAILER SERVICES, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company,
formerly doing business as Quality Services, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02653-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Parker
entered an order granting the joint motion for conditional
certification of the class.
In their motion, the parties agree to the Court's conditional
certification of the proposed class and authorization to issue
notices to potential class members. The parties also explain that
this stipulation does not prevent Defendants from later seeking
decertification of the class.
The Defendant specializes in trailer repairs.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v08ywE at no extra charge.[CC]
RUTGERS BUSINESS: Manipulated Job Placement Data to Boost Ranking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Diamond at Asbury Park Press reports that Rutgers
Business School manipulated its job placement data for graduate
students in a bid to get a higher ranking from U.S. News and World
Report and other publications, according to a class action
lawsuit.
The practice, according to the lawsuit, essentially defrauded
prospective students by convincing them the tuition they spent for
a master's of business administration degree would pay off with a
high-paying job after they graduated.
"Students are heavily influenced by and rely upon . . . Rutgers'
ranking/statistics, not only when choosing one institution over
another, but when making the decision to take out loans to pay for
higher education in the first instance," the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court by the law firm
McOmber McOmber & Luber on behalf of their client, Lorenzo Budet,
an Atlantic City resident who is enrolled in Rutgers' supply chain
management program.
The suit came just days after the firm filed a separate
whistlebower lawsuit in state Superior Court on behalf of the
school's human resources manager, alleging the school placed
unemployed students in sham positions by working with a third-party
employment agency.
Rutgers Business School has main campuses in Newark and New
Brunswick, and about 900 MBA students, most of whom attend part
time.
The class action lawsuit said Rutgers administrators wanted to
boost its U.S. News and World Report ranking by improving its
"placement success," which makes up 35% of the schools' overall
ranking.
The publication doesn't allow schools to count students hired by
the university itself. Rutgers instead hired the students through
the employment agency Adecco, circumventing the restriction, the
lawsuit said.
The school used $400,000 from its endowment to pay for the
positions and Adecco, according to the lawsuit.
Rutgers in a statement said it couldn't comment on the complaint,
but it was confident that it adheres to guidelines established by
industry groups.
"As a public business school, a core tenet of our mission is to
educate and prepare students for successful careers," it said.
"Rutgers Business School invests heavily in the career resources
offered to our students. Through our dedicated Office of Career
Management, we prepare students for career opportunities aligned
with their goals, knowledge, and skills. We consider this as one of
our core differentiators as a business school."
College rankings have been getting more scrutiny. Last month, Moshe
Porat, dean of Temple University's Fox Business School in
Philadelphia, was sentenced to 14 months in prison and three years
of supervised release after being convicted in a scheme to
artificially inflate test scores to U.S. News and World Report.
The McOmber law firm filed a lawsuit April 8 saying Rutgers also
was artificially inflating data for the U.S. News rankings.
Attorneys said Rutgers retaliated against their client, Deirdre
White, a human resources manager for the school, after she raised
concerns about manipulating the data for post-graduation
employment.
In both cases, the attorneys said there is a lot at stake. Rutgers
heavily markets its rankings, helping attract students and tuition
revenue.
"As a result of Rutgers' fraudulent and deceptive business
practices, its students paid a premium tuition but received an
education less than and different from what they expected given the
tainted rankings," the class action lawsuit said. [GN]
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: N.D. California Stays Salhotra Suit Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAVI SALHOTRA, et al., Plaintiffs v. SIMPSON
STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-07901-TSH (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings.
I. Background
The case involves Simpson's HD Strap-tie Holdowns and MAS Mudsil
Anchors (collectively, "Products"), which are embedded in homes'
concrete foundations, nailed to structural members, and covered
with house wrap or exterior cladding. The Plaintiffs are California
and Arizona homeowners with homes containing Simpson's Products.
On March 3, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. The Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal a Class Certification Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(f). On March 17, 2022, they filed a Motion to
Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling on Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) Petition.
On March 25, 2022, Simpson filed an opposition. On April 1, 2022,
the Plaintiffs filed a reply.
II. Discussion
A Rule 23(f) petition "does not stay proceedings in the district
court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders."
To prevail on a motion to stay, the Plaintiffs must show that (1)
they are likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal; (2) they
will be irreparably injured in the absence of a stay; (3) issuance
of a stay will not substantially injure Simpson; and (4) the stay
is in the public interest.
The Plaintiffs argue they are likely to succeed on the merits of
their appeal, the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent a
stay, a temporary stay will not prejudice Simpson, and a stay is in
the public interest.
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The Plaintiffs argue the Court's Order Denying Class Certification
presents serious legal questions and is "manifestly erroneous" or
"questionable" in its analysis of Dr. Brown's testimony and issues
involving Plaintiffs' warranty and UCL-unfairness prong claims.
Simpson argues the Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood that
the Ninth Circuit will grant their Rule 23(f) petition.
Judge Hixson holds that evaluating the Plaintiffs' likelihood of
success on appeal places the Court in the uncomfortable position of
reviewing the merits of its own order, which of course the Court
thinks is correct; that's why the Court issued it. He rejects the
Plaintiffs' arguments that the Court's Order Denying Class
Certification was questionable or manifestly erroneous. However, he
is inclined to give the Plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt and
finds that they have arguably raised serious legal questions for
appeal, which favors a stay pending the Ninth Circuit's ruling on
the Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) Petition. Judge Hixson therefore
considers whether the second, third, and fourth factors "tip
sharply" in favor of a stay.
B. Irreparable Harm
The Plaintiffs argue they will suffer irreparable harm absent a
stay because issues may become moot on appeal and there are high
costs associated with litigation. Simpson argues the Plaintiffs
have failed to show how continued litigation would result in
irreparable harm.
Judge Hixson finds this factor weighs in favor of a stay. If the
case were to proceed with dispositive motions or trial, and if the
Court were reversed on appeal, both parties would suffer
irreparable harm in spending substantial time and resources on
litigation.
C. Injury to Simpson
Simpson argues a delay will injure Simpson's ability to file a
motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' individual claims.
The Plaintiffs argue such a delay will not cause irreparable harm.
Judge Hixson agrees saying a stay would be narrowed to the Ninth
Circuit's ruling on the Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) Petition.
D. Public Interest
The Plaintiffs argue a stay will avoid unnecessary litigation costs
and promote judicial economy. Simpson argues that the public
interest is instead promoted by speedy resolution of the case.
Judge Hixson finds a stay is in the public interest. He states, the
public interest lies in proper resolution of the important issues
raised in the case, and issuance of a stay would avoid wasting
resources on a class action litigation which might be changed in
scope on appeal.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Hixson granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Rule 23(f) Petition Ruling.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8d8u75 from Leagle.com.
SKYLINE HEALTH: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Dante Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THERESA DANTE; TED HUSS; JULIET HINRICHS; SAMANTHA
OGGS; and MARGARET GATES, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH SCHWARTZ; ROSIE
SCHWARTZ; SKYLINE HEALTH CARE, LLC; SKYLINE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC;
CORNERSTONE QUALITY CARE, LLC; COTTONWOOD HEALTHCARE, LLC; FIRST
LANDING INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; and JACK JAFFA a/k/a CHAVA
JAFFA, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-01047 (D.N.J.), Judge John
Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted in part and denied in part Defendant Jack Jaffa's
motion to dismiss.
Mr. Jaffa moved to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
I. Background
In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs claim that they paid
for insurance coverage, but the Defendants stole the money, leaving
the Plaintiffs without coverage. The Plaintiffs worked at nursing
homes in Georgia, South Dakota, Kansas, Arkansas, and Nebraska. The
nursing homes were owned by Defendant Skyline, whose sole members
were Joseph Schwartz and his wife Rosie Schwartz. Skyline was
founded in 2008 to manage nursing homes in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.
As of 2017, Skyline owned over 100 nursing homes in several states,
with major expansion occurring from 2015 to 2017. To facilitate
this growth, the Schwartzes formed several LLCs, including
Defendants Skyline Management Group, Cottonwood Healthcare, and
First Landing Information Services. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Schwartzes grew their holdings quickly, siphoned off the revenue,
and then divested themselves of the facilities.
On Dec. 13, 2016, Defendant Jaffa formed Defendant Cornerstone as
its sole member. Cornerstone's official address is 4581 Route 9,
Site 100, Howell, N.J. Cornerstone was the employer-of-record for
Skyline's staff members, including the Plaintiffs, and the
Plaintiffs' W2 and 1095 tax forms list Cornerstone as the employer.
The Plaintiffs' 1095 forms, however, listed Cornerstone's address
as 40 Vreeland Avenue, Totowa, N.J. 07512, which is the registered
address of Joseph Schwartz's companies. The Plaintiffs had no other
familiarity with Cornerstone.
The Defendants offered the Plaintiffs and other employees health,
dental, and supplemental insurance. Jaffa sent unnamed salespersons
to Skyline's facilities, and the salespersons represented to the
employees that the employees could participate in an insurance
plan, with the Defendants taking the premium amount directly from
employees' paychecks. Employees signed up and premium amounts were
withheld from their paychecks.
The Defendants retained American Plan Administrators as a
third-party administrator. However, insurance was never provided to
the employees, and Defendants did not fund the insurance plan. On
March 29, 2018, American Plan Administrators sent a termination
letter to Joseph Schwartz and Jaffa.
Later, Tall Tree Administrators was retained as a third-party
administrator. Tall Tree Administrators encountered the same issues
as American Plan Administrators, indicating that "the self-funded
employer group, Skyline Healthcare, has failed to provide Tall Tree
with any funding for their employee claims. After multiple
attempts, it appears that the funding for claims will not occur,
and therefore Tall Tree has terminated our services on behalf of
Skyline Healthcare." The Plaintiffs were unaware that the insurance
plans had not been funded and, as a result, received medical and
dental care for which they were (unknowingly) responsible
financially.
By 2018 or 2019, Skyline began to divest itself of recently
acquired nursing homes. Over 50 of Skyline's facilities have gone
into state-run receiverships because of nonpayment of bills. The
Plaintiffs allege that the formation of Cornerstone and the
nonpayment of insurance costs were part a larger conspiracy between
Joseph Schwartz and Jaffa to pocket those sums and run the
facilities solely for their benefit. They refer to the Defendants
collectively as "the Skyline Enterprise" and allege that the
constituent entities were formed to improperly further the
Defendants' personal interests.
The Plaintiffs filed their first Complaint on Jan. 30, 2020. They
amended their Complaint on Oct. 21, 2020, to, inter alia, add Jaffa
as a defendant. They then filed the SAC on Aug. 17, 2021. The SAC
asserts one, overarching class and several subclasses based on the
state in which Plaintiffs worked.
The overarching class brings claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962,
(Count I); conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d),
(Count II); and breach of fiduciary duty, (Count VIII); negligence,
(Count IX); and conversion (Count X).
The Plaintiffs also assert four subclasses: (1) a South-Dakota
class pursuant to the South Dakota Consumer Protection Law
("SDCPL"), S.D. Codified Laws Section 37-24-1 et seq., (Count III);
and the South Dakota Fraudulent Concealment Law ("SDFCL"), S.D.
Codified Laws Section 20-10-2(3), (Count VI); (2) a Kansas class
under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"), Kan. Stat. Ann.
Section 50-623 et seq., (Count IV); (3) a Nebraska class under the
Nebraska Consumer Protection Act ("NCPA"), Neb. Rev. Stat. Section
59-1061 et seq., (Count V); and (4) an Arkansas class, under the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"), Ark. Code Ann.
Section 4-88-107 et seq., (Count VII).
Jaffa moved to dismiss all counts brought against him
individually.
II. Analysis
A. Group Pleading and Rule 9(b)
The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to set
forth sufficient specific facts against him. It explains that the
Plaintiffs have engaged in impermissible group pleading and that
the SAC fails to meet Rule 9(b).
Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs have provided enough detail
to put Defendant on notice of the precise misconduct that forms the
basis of their claims. Again, the Court cannot overlook the fact
that the Plaintiffs plead an overarching scheme to defraud (the
phony insurance plans) with Cornerstone at the center of scheme as
the Plaintiffs' purported employer. And, again, Jaffa does not
challenge these allegations.
The SAC alleges an agreement or conspiracy between the Defendant
and Joseph Schwartz; accuses the Defendant of forming Cornerstone
(as its sole member) in furtherance of the conspiracy; accuses
Jaffa of soliciting membership in an employee insurance plan by
dispatching salespersons to Skyline's facilities; accuses
Cornerstone of deducting premiums from the Plaintiffs' paychecks;
and accuses Cornerstone of not acquiring insurance, with one letter
from a third-party administrator addressed to Jaffa and Joseph
Schwartz.
For these reasons, Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied the requirements of Rule 9(b).
B. Plaintiffs' Substantive Claims
Next, the Defendant argues that the SAC fails to set forth facts to
state claims under federal or state law.
1. RICO and RICO Conspiracy (Counts I & II)
Mr. Jaffa appears to only challenge whether he "conducted" an
enterprise. Jaffa argues that the Plaintiffs' substantive RICO
claim fails because Plaintiffs rely on the allegation that the
Defendant owned the company, Cornerstone, that was involved with
Plaintiffs' employment at the nursing homes. He asserts that the
company's conduct cannot be imputed to him. Judge Vazquez finds
that the SAC sufficiently pleads a civil RICO claim against
Defendant. As to Jaffa's personal involvement, the SAC alleges
sufficient "conduct" on the Defendant's part.
The Defendant next asserts that if the Plaintiffs' substantive RICO
claim fails, then their conspiracy must fail in turn. Jaffa further
argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege the existence of a
conspiracy, or that he participated in a conspiracy. The first
assertion falls short because Judge Vazquez has found that the
substantive RICO claim is sufficiently alleged. The second
assertion is made in conclusory fashion without analysis, so he
rejects it. Accordingly, Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs
have sufficiently stated a claim for RICO conspiracy.
2. South Dakota Subclass (Counts III & VI)
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim under the SDCPL because they have not sufficiently alleged
that he engaged in an act or practice proscribed in S.D. Codified
Laws Sections 37-24-6(1)-(2). It also asserts that the SAC does not
allege that the Plaintiffs suffered damages "in connection with the
sale or advertisement of any merchandise.
Judge Vazquez holds that the Court has found that the SAC
adequately alleges such misrepresentations. It alleges that the
Defendant (through salespersons) lied to the Plaintiffs about
acquiring insurance for them. The Defendant's use of third parties
to transmit those representations does not insulate him from
liability under South-Dakota law. The Plaintiffs, however, do not
address whether those representations were made "in connection with
the sale or advertisement of merchandise," as is required by the
statute. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged
a violation under the SDCPL.
In Count VI, the Plaintiffs bring a claim under the SDFCL. Instead
of addressing this statute, the Defendant argues that the
"Plaintiffs' common law fraud claims likewise fail." In reply, the
Defendant phrases his argument in terms of the SDFCL. As a general
rule, courts do not consider new arguments raised in reply briefs.
Because Jaffa did not address the statute in his initial motion,
Judge Vazquez denies the Defendant's motion on this ground.
3. Kansas Subclass (Count IV)
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under
the KCPA. D. Br. at 20-22. Jaffa reasons that the Plaintiffs are
not "consumers" within the meaning of the statute because they were
employees, that he is not a "supplier" within the meaning of the
statute, that the Plaintiffs provide only broad generalizations as
to his conduct, and that there are no allegations that Defendant
made representations about insurance coverage to the Plaintiffs
that caused their harm.
Judge Vazquez opines that the SAC does not sufficiently describe
the Defendant's ordinary course of business so the Court cannot
determine whether the Defendant engages in consumer transactions as
a "supplier." Accordingly, he finds that the Plaintiffs have not
adequately stated a claim under the KCPA.
4. Nebraska Subclass (Count V)
Next, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state
a claim under the NCPA because the Act was not meant to apply to
employment relationships and because the Defendant's complained of
conduct does not sufficiently impact the public interest. In the
SAC, the Plaintiffs do not appear to allege that their case
implicates the public interest. In their opposition, the Plaintiffs
argue that their case implicates the public interest because the
Defendant could have defrauded thousands of citizens of Nebraska
who worked in nineteen nursing homes in that state.
While the SAC does make reference to Nebraska nursing homes, Judge
Vazquez opines that it makes no reference to the number of
employees at the facilities. The Plaintiffs cannot amend their
pleading through their briefing. Because the Defendant allegedly
targeted only Cornerstone employees with deceptive statements,
Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled
that the Defendant's behavior impacted the public interest so as to
be actionable under the NCPA.
5. Arkansas Subclass (Count VII)
Mr. Jaffa next seeks to dismiss the ADTPA claim against him. The
Defendant argues that the SAC does not adequately allege that he
engaged in conduct that is unlawful under the statute, that the act
does not apply to the relationship between the Defendant and the
Plaintiffs, and that the SAC does not contain facts showing the
Defendant's culpable state of mind. The Plaintiffs respond that
they have pled sufficient facts to support the claim.
Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
alleged a consumer-oriented act on the Defendant's part. He opines
that the Eighth Circuit observed that Arkansas courts had not
applied the ADTPA to business dealings between manufacturers and
their distributors where the customers themselves had not been
defrauded or deceived. Hence, Count VII is dismissed.
6. Common-Law Claims (Counts VIII-X)
Finally, the SAC brings three common-law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence, and conversion. The parties agree that
the elements of those torts are substantially the same across
states and argue them as rising and falling together.
Judge Vazquez finds that (i) he agrees with the Defendant finding
that the paragraphs of the SAC on which the Plaintiffs rely to be
conclusory, so the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently stated a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) while the Plaintiffs have cited
the wrong legal standard, the Defendant has only provided a cursory
argument and because his analysis is utterly lacking, Judge Vazquez
denies the Defendant's motion on this ground; and (iii) the
Plaintiffs have stated a claim against the Defendant personally for
conversion because Jaffa played a central role in the daily affairs
of the entity accused of converting the Plaintiffs' money.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Vazquez granted in part and denied
in part the motion. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2fwnhwtd from Leagle.com.
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Jean-Francois Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL JEAN-FRANCOIS, ALICIA JOHNSON, and WANDA KING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS,
CORP., SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP., and SMITHFIELD DISTRIBUTION,
LLC., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00063 (E.D.N.C., April 19, 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 Jean-Francois was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Smithfield Foods, Inc. processes meat products. The Company
produces hams, hog, meats, and pork products. Smithfield Foods
serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone: (704) 612-0038
Email: phil@gibbonslg.com
corey@gibbonslg.com
- and -
David J. Fish, Esq.
John C. Kunze, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (312) 861-1800
Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
SPORTS RESEARCH: Judge Certifies False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on April 14 certified a class of consumers alleging that they
were deceived by Sports Research Corp.'s advertisements that its
dietary supplements would help them lose weight, find that their
claims share common issues. [GN]
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Varela Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Yasmin Varela,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No.
0:22-cv-00970-JRT-ECW (D. Minn., April 15, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated Insurance for Insurance Contract.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large
group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States
with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David W Asp, Esq.
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
Email: dwasp@locklaw.com
khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Paul J Phelps, Esq.
SAWICKI & PHELPS
5758 Blackshire Path
Inver Grove Hts, MN 55076-1624
Phone: (651) 730-6900
Fax: (651) 730-8110
Email: pphelps@mnlawyers.com
STEPHEN GEORGE: Razuri Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Razuri, an individual, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated v. STEPHEN GEORGE, an individual, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV12929 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., April 18, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide Plaintiff with itemized wage statements, minimum
and overtime wages, and prompt payment of wages upon termination.
The Defendant failed to pay overtime wages of one and one half of
the Plaintiff's hourly wage for all hours worked over 8 hours in a
day or 40 hours in a week. The Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiff with accurate wage statements indicating all hours worked
and the applicable hourly rate. The Defendant failed to pay wages
for all time worked. The Defendant failed to provide paid sick
leave. The Defendant failed to keep and maintain accurate employee
records, including payroll and time records. As the Plaintiff is no
longer employed by the Defendant, the Defendant has continuously
failed to pay the Plaintiff all wages owed and due, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Amazing Brands, Inc., a company owned
and operated by Stephen George.
The Defendant George is an officer or director of Amazing Brands
Inc. and was primarily responsible for creating the policies and
procedures at issue in this Complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
Andrew J. Kearney, Esq.
KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
3051 Foothill Blvd., Ste. B
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Phone (213) 473-1900
Facsimile (213) 473-1919
Email: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
pwl@kearneylittlefield.com
ajk@kearneylittlefield.com
- and -
Brandon Littlefield, Esq.
LITTLEFIELD LAW
450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 600
Glendale, CA 91203
Email: brandon@littlefieldlawpractice.com
SUPER CARE: Faces Shalviri Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
HAMID SHALVIRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPER CARE, INC. d/b/a SUPERCARE HEALTH,
INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02585 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2022)
is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and
protected health information ("PHI") that Defendant's patients
entrusted to it, including, without limitation, name, address, date
of birth, hospital or medical group, patient account number,
medical record number, health insurance information,
testing/diagnostic/treatment information, other health-related
information, claim information, and Social Security number and/or
driver's license number maintained by Defendant SuperCare
(collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that Defendant failed to (i)
adequately protect the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members;
(ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of its inadequate information
security practices; and (iii) avoid sharing the PII and PHI of
Plaintiff and Class Members without adequate safeguards.
Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and
state statutes.
SUPER CARE, INC. provides medical equipment. The Company offers
ventilation, oxygen, enteral nutrition, and pharmacy products.
Super Care serves customers in the United States. [BN}]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael F. Ram,Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
Email: mram@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
Patrick Barthle, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
fkester@ForThePeople.com
T. ROWE PRICE: To Settle Retirement Plan Mismanagement Suit for $7M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that T. Rowe Price agreed to pay $7
million to resolve claims it violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by mismanaging its employee
retirement plan.
The settlement benefits participants and beneficiaries of the T.
Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Plan who had a balance in their account
between Feb. 14, 2011, and Jan. 18, 2022. Balances must have been
in one of 39 specific funds. A full list is available on the
settlement website.
T. Rowe Price is an investment management firm that manages $1.68
trillion in assets. According to the company's website, T. Rowe
Price employs over 800 investment professionals around the world.
Despite its expertise in investment management, T. Rowe Price
allegedly mismanaged its own employees' retirement fund.
According to the retirement class action lawsuit, T. Rowe Price
invested employee retirement savings solely in its own funds. These
investments enriched T. Rowe Price through the high fees associated
with the proprietary funds, the plaintiffs contend.
The plan participants argue T. Rowe Price violated its fiduciary
duties under ERISA by investing into its own proprietary funds
instead of better performing funds with lower fees. Plaintiffs say
that they are owed financial compensation for T. Rowe Price's
"corporate self-sealing at the expense of the retirement savings of
company employees."
T. Rowe Price hasn't admitted any liability in the case but agreed
to resolve the plan participants' allegations with a $7 million
class action settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can collect a
payment. Payments will be at least $20, but exact amounts will vary
depending on the amount each Class Member invested in T. Rowe Price
retirement funds.
Former plan members will receive their payment as a check while
current plan participants will have their payment allocated to
their retirement plan account.
In addition to providing payments, the settlement provides
non-monetary benefits. T. Rowe Price agreed to add a brokerage
window feature to its retirement plan to allow participants greater
investment options.
Class Members do not have the option to opt out of this settlement.
Because the complaint was certified as a class action lawsuit,
Class Members are bound by the settlement terms.
The deadline for objection was April 26, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
24, 2022.
No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class
Members will automatically receive a cash payment from the
settlement after final approval.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits participants and beneficiaries of the T.
Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Plan who had a balance in their account
between Feb. 14, 2011, and Jan. 18, 2022. Balances must have been
in one of 39 specific funds. A full list is available on the
settlement website.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable.
Claim Form
Claim form not required.
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Objection Deadline
04/26/2022
Case Name
Feinberg et al. v. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., et al., Case Number
1:17-cv-00427-JKB, in the U.S. District Court, for the District of
Maryland
Final Hearing
05/24/2022
Settlement Website
TRP401KSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
In re T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan Litigation
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. - 6924 PO Box 54
Minneapolis, MN 55440-0054
info@TRP401kSetlement.com
877-456-1184
Class Counsel
J Brian McTigue
James A. Moore
MCTIGUE LAW LLP
Mary J Bortscheller
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
Defense Counsel
Brian D Boyle
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP [GN]
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Vacation of $18M Judgment in KB Home Suit Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KB HOME FORT MYERS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Appellant v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO., LTD., f/k/a SHANDONG
TAIHE DONGXIN CO., LTD., and TAI'AN TAISHAN PLASTERBOARD CO., LTD.,
Appellees, Case No. 2D21-384 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court
of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reversed the trial court's
order granting a motion to vacate an $18 million default judgment.
I. Background
Plaintiff KB appeals an order granting a motion to vacate an $18
million default judgment. The trial court concluded that KB
improperly obtained clerk's defaults against Defendants Taishan and
Tai'an (collectively Taishan") and that the resulting final
judgment was void.
More than a decade ago, lawsuits over hundreds of millions of
square feet of defective Chinese drywall besieged federal and state
courts -- In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.,
894 F.Supp.2d 819, 829-30 (E.D. La. 2012).
The case is one of those lawsuits. In 2011, KB sued Taishan,
alleging that Taishan sold defective Chinese drywall to KB which KB
used to construct homes in Florida; KB sought to recover the costs
it incurred repairing homes where it had installed Taishan's
defective drywall. KB obtained service of process on Taishan
pursuant to the Hague Convention, but Taishan refused to accept the
documents. Taishan did not file or serve any document in the
action, and in late 2012, KB moved for clerk's defaults. Shortly
after those defaults issued, KB moved for a final default judgment.
KB served the motions for clerk's defaults and for final judgment
on Taishan by mail.
The trial court referred KB's motion for final judgment to a
magistrate; the referral order -- which the court mailed to Taishan
-- contained detailed provisions on objecting to the referral and
other matters pertinent to the litigation, such as the magistrate's
authority to conduct evidentiary proceedings. Pursuant to the
referral order and a notice of hearing that KB mailed to Taishan,
the magistrate held a hearing in June 2013. Taishan didn't file or
serve any documents and didn't appear for the hearing.
In July 2013, the magistrate issued a report and recommendation,
finding that KB was entitled to judgment against Taishan for
approximately $18 million in damages. In October 2013, the trial
court issued an order adopting the magistrate's findings and
recommendations; that order, like the magistrate's report and
recommendation, was mailed to Taishan.
Nearly seven years later, in August 2020, Taishan appeared in the
action and filed a "motion to vacate default orders." Arguing that
the clerk's defaults, the magistrate's report and recommendation,
and the order adopting the report and recommendation (the "adoption
order") were "void," Taishan sought vacatur of all the foregoing
orders. Taishan primarily asserted that the trial court lacked
personal jurisdiction over it because service of process was
deficient. Alternately, it contended that the clerk's defaults were
entered in violation of its due process rights because KB didn't
serve Taishan's "known counsel" (Hogan Lovells) with notice of its
applications for the defaults. Taishan also argued that the
adoption order was "void" because it was "entered without notice"
to Hogan Lovells and therefore should be vacated under Florida Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4).
KB submitted a memorandum opposing Taishan's motion on all fronts.
KB argued that Taishan was properly served with initial process and
subsequently properly served with notice of the default
proceedings. KB also argued that it was not required to notify
Hogan Lovells of the default proceedings because Hogan Lovells
ignored KB's multiple attempts to communicate about this suit, so
there was no reason to believe that Hogan Lovells would defend
Taishan in this suit.
KB submitted extensive evidence, including several affidavits, one
of which was from Lannie Hough, a Carlton Fields lawyer. Mr.
Hough's affidavit reflected that -- before filing the action -- he
sent the Hogan Lovells attorneys who were Taishan's counsel of
record in the MDL a letter (via facsimile and certified mail/return
receipt requested) notifying them of the claims KB ultimately
asserted in the suit. Mr. Hough's affidavit attached the
verification of fax transmission and the certified mail receipt.
Mr. Hough attested that no Hogan Lovells lawyer ever responded to
his letter or to his several subsequent attempts to communicate
with Hogan Lovells lawyers about KB's claims against Taishan. Mr.
Hough's affidavit also reflected that Carlton Fields sent over a
hundred presuit notices concerning KB's claims to Taishan's Chinese
headquarters, but Taishan refused delivery of most of those letters
and responded to none of them.
Taishan submitted no evidence to support its motion and no evidence
to counter KB's submissions. Following a hearing, the trial court
entered an order in which it (1) denied Taishan's request to quash
service of process and concluded that Taishan had been properly
served and (2) vacated the then eight-year-old clerk's defaults,
the magistrate's report and recommendation, and the adoption
order.
The court reasoned that KB was required to notify Hogan Lovells of
the default proceedings against Taishan because (1) KB and Taishan
were both defendants in the "related" MDL and (2) Hogan Lovells was
Taishan's counsel of record in the MDL. The trial court found that
KB "demonstrated" its "actual knowledge" that Hogan Lovells
represented Taishan "in drywall litigation" by sending Hogan
Lovells the presuit letter.
Despite Mr. Hough's uncontroverted testimony that Hogan Lovells
ignored the letter and his subsequent attempts to communicate with
them about KB's claims, the court determined that a "duty of
civility and professionalism" required KB to notify Hogan Lovells
of its applications for clerk's defaults. Because KB didn't do so,
the court concluded that the defaults were "improperly entered" and
ruled that their "invalid entry" rendered the adoption order
"void." It also declared the adoption order void because (1) KB
didn't notify Hogan Lovells of the default damages proceedings
before the magistrate and (2) the damages amount wasn't fixed by a
jury although KB's complaint included a jury trial demand.
The appeal ensued.
II. Discussion
Taishan maintains that the court's decision to vacate the clerk's
defaults should be reviewed separately for abuse of discretion. It
is true that the District Court of Appeal generally reviews a
decision on a motion to set aside a clerk's default for abuse of
discretion. In the case, the trial court was legally precluded from
vacating the clerk's default because rule 1.540(b)(4) -- the only
procedural vehicle under which Taishan sought relief -- does not
authorize vacatur of a voidable judgment. And the adoption order
was voidable, not void. Thus, the "two-step" review Taishan urges
should be unnecessary. But to the extent the trial court made
factual findings to support its decision to vacate the clerk's
defaults, the court abused its discretion because such findings are
unsupported by, and are indeed contradicted by, the only evidence
in this record.
The District Court of Appeal finds that the trial court erred
legally by declaring the adoption order void. Because the order was
-- at worst -- voidable, Taishan was required to challenge it
within a year of its entry. As a matter of law, Taishan's failure
to do so precluded any later challenge to the clerk's defaults that
preceded the adoption order.
The District Court of Appeals opines that Taishan's sole challenge
to the adoption order was that it was "void"; so Taishan's motion
-- which was filed seven years after entry of the adoption order --
was necessarily grounded in rule 1.540(b)(4). A party may challenge
a void judgment pursuant to subsection (b)(4) at any time, but
"this rule does not permit vacating a judgment that is merely
'voidable.'" As the Court has explained, a "voidable judgment can
be challenged by motion for rehearing or appeal and may be subject
to collateral attack under specific circumstances, but it cannot be
challenged at any time as void under rule 1.540(b)(4)."
The central question, then, is whether the adoption order was void
or merely voidable. KB maintains that the adoption order was
voidable, and the District Court of Appeal agrees. It opines that
Taishan unquestionably had notice and an opportunity to be heard
before the adoption order was rendered. KB properly served Taishan
with the complaint, and Taishan "failed to file or serve any
document in the action." Taishan submitted no evidence suggesting
that it didn't receive the subsequent default filings all of which
were mailed to Taishan at its service addresses.
The trial court's finding that KB had "actual knowledge" that Hogan
Lovells represented Taishan in drywall litigation beyond the MDL is
unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Even more,
uncontroverted evidence affirmatively establishes that neither
Hogan Lovells nor Taishan intended to defend thie lawsuit. As a
result, the trial court erred legally and abused its discretion by
vacating the clerk's defaults and the resultant adoption order.
KB argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the
adoption order "[wa]s invalid and void" because KB didn't notify
Hogan Lovells of the default damages proceedings before the
magistrate. The District Court of Appeal agrees for two reasons.
First, KB wasn't required to notify Hogan Lovells of the default
damages proceedings. Second, Taishan undisputedly was notified of
the default damages proceedings. Even if such notice were
deficient, failure to notify a defaulted party of a damages hearing
before judgment is entered renders the judgment voidable -- not
void. For the reasons it discussed, and because Taishan waited
seven years to challenge the adoption order, the District Court of
Appeal opines that the trial court lacked authority to grant relief
on this ground.
Lastly, KB challenges the trial court's conclusion that "even if
entry of the default had been valid, the amounts entered as damages
would still be invalid because they were not fixed by jury trial."
Taishan concedes -- and the District Court of Appeal agrees -- that
the court's failure to hold a jury trial on damages didn't render
the adoption order void.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the District Court of Appeal reversed and
remanded with instructions for the trial court to reinstate the
adoption order as a final judgment in favor of KB.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/zwv57cd8 from Leagle.com.
Chris W. Altenbernd -- caltenbernd@bankerlopez.com -- of Banker
Lopez Gassler P.A., Tampa; Eleanor Sills of Banker Lopez Gassler
P.A., Tallahassee; and Joseph H. Lang, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A.,
Tampa, for the Appellant.
Enjolique Aytch Lett -- lette@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig,
P.A., Miami; and Christina Hull Eikhoff, Matthew D. Lawson, and
David Venderbush of Alston & Bird, in Atlanta, Georgia, for the
Appellee.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Albrecht Suit Over Proposed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY ALBRECHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRAUSS ZELNICK; MICHAEL DORNEMANN; ROLAND
HERNANDEZ; JON MOSES, MICHAEL SHERESKY; LAVERNE SRINIVASAN; SUSAN
TOLSON; PAUL VIERA; and TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2022-0345 (Del. Ch., April 19, 2022) is an
action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow
Take-Two stockholders to cast a fully informed vote on the
Proposals.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached the fiduciary
duty in connection with the solicitation of stockholder approval
concerning (i) Take-Two's proposed issuance of common stock (the
"Share Issuance") and (ii) a proposed amendment to Take-Two's
Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized
shares of Take-Two capital stock (the "Charter Amendment," and
collectively with the Share Issuance, the "Proposals") in
connection with the Company's proposed business combination with
Zynga Inc. ("Zynga").
The Proxy Statement filed by the Defendants allegedly fails to
disclose the amount of financing-related fees that J.P. Morgan will
receive for helping to provide the transaction-related debt
financing to Take-Two. The omitted information concerning J.P.
Morgan and its conflicts of interest is patently material because
it is imperative for Take-Two stockholders to be able to understand
what factors may have influenced J.P. Morgan's analytical efforts
in providing advisory services and the fairness opinion to Take-Two
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Notably, because J.P.
Morgan is helping to provide the transaction-related financing to
Take-Two, J.P. Morgan had a powerful incentive to advise Take-Two
to enter into the Proposed Transaction and take on the
transaction-related debt financing. Take-Two stockholders voting on
the Proposals would find this information regarding J.P. Morgan's
conflicts of interest material in determining how to vote.
In order to fairly assess the Proposed Transaction and decide how
to vote on the Proposals, and to assess whether to rely on J.P.
Morgan's fairness opinion in making that decision, Take-Two
stockholders, such as the Plaintiff, are entitled to know all
material information about J.P. Morgan's conflicts of interest.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC. develops, markets, distributes,
and publishes interactive entertainment software games and
accessories. The Company's products are for console systems,
handheld gaming systems and personal computers and are delivered
through physical retail, digital download, online, and cloud
streaming services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
TAX LEADERS: Andreychenko Sues Over Tax Preparers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KSENIA ANDREYCHENKO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAX LEADERS OF AMERICA LLC, MARIO
SANCHEZ, DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13142 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 20, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act and California's Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure
to pay wages during employment, failure to pay wages upon
termination, failure to provide properly itemized wage statements,
and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a tax preparer from June
28, 2019 until September 2021.
Tax Leaders of America LLC is a tax consultant with its principal
place of business in Woodland Hills, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neer Lerner, Esq.
LERNER LAW FIRM, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (818) 576-8282
Facsimile: (818) 330-4072
E-mail: neer@lemerlawfirm.net
TEGNA INC: Workers Seek Class Certification in 401(k) Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Gannett Co.
workers challenging the stock of former parent company Tegna Inc.
in their 401(k) plan asked a Virginia federal judge to certify the
case as a class action covering more than 12,000 people.
The case turns on common questions about Gannett's status as a
401(k) plan fiduciary and whether it violated its fiduciary duties
by allowing the plan to hold $269 million in Tegna stock after a
corporate spin-off, plaintiff Christina Stegemann said in an April
15 class certification motion filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia. [GN]
TENNESSEE: Ex-inmates' Lawsuit Alleges Forced 'Sex Shows' in Jail
-----------------------------------------------------------------
thehill.com reports that a federal class action lawsuit filed by
two former inmates accuses Grainger County corrections officers of
oppression, sexual abuse, coercion, and intimidation for allegedly
forcing female inmates to strip naked and participate in forced-sex
acts.
Jailer Travis Hank Davis was terminated on April 24, 2021 for
violating Code of Ethics, officer misconduct, and abusing his
position, the lawsuit claims. An attorney representing the women
says his clients are "traumatized."
The civil rights class action lawsuit, filed April 12, names
Grainger County Sheriff James Harville, Jail Administrator Chris
Harville, and corrections officers Travis Davis and Leonard Dalton
as defendants, along with Grainger County.
In the lawsuit, plaintiffs claim 8 violations of their rights under
the Fourth (unreasonable search), Eighth (cruel and unusual
punishment), and Fourteenth (right to bodily privacy and freedom
from bodily intrusion) Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and
violations of Tennessee statutory and common law.
Davis is accused of "repeatedly" forcing female inmates, including
the plaintiffs, to "perform various sex acts on each other while he
watched and masturbated within the confines of the control room of
the Grainger County Jail." The "shows" occurred within the female
inmate pod with Davis allegedly orchestrating, announcing and
directing using the jail's intercom or loud-speaker system, the
lawsuit states.
"Sheriff Harville and Jail Administrator Harville failed to
investigate, discipline, question or stop Officer Davis's horrific
sexual abuse and degradation of female inmates until approximately
April 24, 2021, when he was eventually fired," the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs said complaints were made to other correctional
officers but to no avail, and transfer requests were "ignored" or
denied, leading them to perceive that Davis was "untouchable." The
lawsuit alleged that a correctional officer told the women to
"contact an attorney on their own time."
The former inmates claim that a "residence request report" asking
if they could be moved was eventually met with the reply, "How good
have you been?"
The lawsuit also states that the shows "were hardly a secret in the
Jail."
The lawsuit filed in the Northeastern Division of the Eastern
District of Tennessee claims that Davis brought lighters for their
cigarettes a few days after they were booked into the jail. Over
time, the lawsuit claims that Davis became verbally sexually
aggressive toward the plaintiffs.
"For example, he [Davis] remarked that he pictured their faces
instead of his wife's when he and his wife were having sexual
relations the night before, or asked them to describe their breasts
and genitalia," the lawsuit claims.
In February and early March 2021, the lawsuit claims Davis began
using the control room's intercom to make inappropriate remarks
about female inmates' bodies. The lawsuit claims Davis used his
position of authority to intimidate the inmates. [GN]
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Buccigrossi Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LENA BUCCIGROSSI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY, Civil
Action No. 21-cv-0221-JMY (E.D. Pa.), Judge John Milton Younge of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
I. Background
Plaintiff Buccigrossi, a student at Jefferson University, has
brought the putative class action complaint alleging that Defendant
Jefferson violated its contractual obligations and was unjustly
enriched when they transitioned to online learning as a result of
the Covid-19 pandemic and declined to refund student tuition and
fees. The Plaintiff, in essence, argues that because Jefferson
cancelled all in-person instruction, she and other similarly
situated students received a materially different service than
promised and thus, were deprived of the benefit of their bargain.
Recently, the Court addressed nearly identical legal claims to the
present matter in Brezinzki v. Widener University, 2022 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 16291, No. 20-cv-4939 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2022) where
plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
On Jan. 15, 2021, the Plaintiff brought the action on behalf of
herself, and others similarly situated, seeking a refund of tuition
and fees paid to Jefferson, asserting breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, conversion and money had and received common law
claims.
On May 7, 2021, the Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.
Despite the lack of a written expression between the parties
guaranteeing in-person classes, the Plaintiff, like the plaintiff
in Brezinzki, argues that an in-person education is implied based
on the higher cost of tuition for in-person coursework, marketing
material and information posted on Jefferson's class registration
portal and course catalogs. The matter is briefed and appropriate
for disposition without oral argument.
II. Discussion
A. Breach of Contract
The Plaintiff alleges that she entered into a contractual agreement
with the Defendant where in exchange for tuition and fees, the
Defendant was obligated to provide in-person class instruction.
Judge Younge grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.
Judge Younge holds that despite styling her complaint as bringing
both an "express" and "implied" breach of contract claim, the
Plaintiff never points to any explicit language by Jefferson
showing that in-person classes were guaranteed. Hence, the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for an "express" breach of
contract.
Judge Younge also holds that the Plaintiff similarly fails to state
an "implied" breach of contract claim. Under Pennsylvania law, the
relationship between a student and a private educational
institution is contractual. One of the difficulties in cases
involving educational institutions is that generally the
contractual agreement between students and the university hardly
looks a comprehensive contract. That certainly is the case here as
there is no single integrated, written contract between the
Plaintiff and Jefferson.
Even if Pennsylvania law permitted an implied, breach of contract
claim for an in-person education, Jduge Young holds that the
Plaintiff's Complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as in
Brezinski v. Widener University where the Court granted the
defendant university's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. As the Court detailed in that case, to the extent
information posted on a university's registration portal or course
catalog encouraged a student to enroll in what was thought to be an
in-person class, this material does not, by itself, create a basis
for an implied, breach of contract.
Lastly, the marketing materials the Plaintiff alleges further
supports her claim is also unavailing. Even if Jefferson's
promotional materials conjured images of an on-campus collegial
environment, such advertisements, according to Judge Younge,
without "some language of commitment or some invitation to take
action without further communication" cannot form a contract.
B. Unjust Enrichment
In the alternative to a breach of contract claim, the Plaintiff
brings a claim for unjust enrichment. Under Pennsylvania law, a
plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment if
the parties' relationship is governed by a written contract, though
they may plead this claim in the alternative when there is a
dispute about the existence or validity of a contract.
Both the Plaintiff and Jefferson agree that there is a contract
that governs the parties' relationship, though they dispute whether
the contract obligates Jefferson to provide an in-person education.
In such circumstances, even when pled in the alternative, it is
appropriate to dismiss a claim for unjust enrichment. Therefore,
Judge younge will dismiss the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim.
C. Conversion
The Plaintiff is also suing for conversion. Jefferson argues that
the Plaintiff's claim for conversion is barred by the gist of the
action and economic loss doctrines. Conversion is a tort by which
the defendant deprives the plaintiff of his right to chattel or
interferes with the plaintiff's use or possession of chattel
without the plaintiff's consent and without lawful justification.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was contractually
obligated to provide an in-person education, and that a materially
different service than what was promised was provided when
Jefferson shifted classes online. The contract is not incidental to
the harm complained of as set forth in the Plaintiff's allegations.
The Plaintiff also seeks solely economic damages for the alleged
loss of the benefit of a bargain with Jefferson. Thus, the gist of
action and economic loss doctrines squarely bar the Plaintiff's
claim for conversion. Judge Younge, therefore, grants the
Defendant's Motion as to the Plaintiff's conversion claim.
D. Money Had and Received
The Plaintiff's final common law claim "for money had and received"
also fails as a matter of law. A cause of action for money had and
received exists where money is wrongfully diverted from its proper
use and falls into the hands of a third person who, in equity and
good conscience, has an inferior right to it. It requires that
money be paid by mistake, under compulsion, where consideration is
insufficient. Judge Younge finds that none of these conditions
exist in the case. Thus, the Plaintiff has no cognizable claim for
money had and received and he grant's the Defendant's Motion as to
this claim.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he discussed, Judge Younge granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. An appropriate Order will follow.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rx4jjfh6 from Leagle.com.
TRILLER INC: Averts Biometric Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that video-sharing
social media application Triller Inc. won its bid to dismiss a
proposed biometric privacy class action it's facing in New York
federal court.
The claim that Triller violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is
dismissed with prejudice, but Judge Jed S. Rakoff left open the
possibility of amending other claims in an opinion filed on April
18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
Tamara Wilson, an Illinois resident who says she used the app for
about six months, sued Triller in December. [GN]
TWITTER: Musk Waited Too Long to Disclose Stock Purchase, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Elon Musk is being accused of
harming Twitter investors by waiting too long to officially
disclose his investment in the company to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).
Twitter investor Marc Bain Rasella, in a class action lawsuit filed
against Musk, claims the product architect and CEO of Tesla waited
11 days too late to officially disclose his purchase of Twitter's
stock to the SEC.
Rasella argues Musk was required by law to officially disclose his
investment with the SEC by Mar. 24 -- 10 days after his stake in
Twitter rose to at least 5% - however, the investor says the SpaceX
founder didn't do so until Apr. 4.
During that time, Rasella argues, Musk was able to save around $143
million by filing his form with the SEC past the deadline as he
continued to purchase shares at the expense of other shareholders.
Rasella claims Twitter investors who sold the stock between the
time Musk was supposed to disclose and when he actually did were
harmed since they were unable to cash in on the share price
increase that occurred when the market found out and reacted to his
purchase.
Twitter Class Action Claims Disclosure Delay Led To 'Artificially
Deflated' Price
Because of the delay, Rasella claims he and others like him ended
up selling Twitter stock at an "artificially deflated" price.
Rasella also argues Musk was guilty of making "materially false and
misleading statements and omissions" due to his alleged failure to
disclose that he had acquired a 5% ownership stake in Twitter.
Musk purchased a total of 9.2% of Twitter stock, which makes him
the largest outside shareholder, according to NBC News, which
reports the company's stock price jumped 27% after news of his
acquisition went public.
Rasella claims Musk is in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. He is demanding a jury trial and requesting an award of
compensatory and punitive damages for himself and all class
members.
Musk was defiant in the face of separate claims litigated last year
where he was accused by Tesla pension fund stockholders of pushing
through the company's acquisition of a "troubled" SolarCity Corp.
for $2.6 billion.
The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey C. Block, Jacob A. Walker
and Nathaniel Silver of Block & Leviton LLP.
The Elon Musk Twitter Stock Class Action Lawsuit is Rasella v.
Musk, Case No. 1:22-cv-03026, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. [GN]
UMG RECORDINGS: Group of Musicians Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley King, writing for Digital Music News, report that a group of
nine musicians are suing UMG and Capitol Records to regain control
of their masters. That group filed a motion on April 15 in NY
courts seeking class-action certification.
Plaintiffs in the suit Waite vs. UMG Recordings, Inc. and Capitol
Records LLC filed a motion for class certification on April 15.
They've asked District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to certify
classes compromised of more than two hundred musical groups and
solo recording artists.
The case was brought by singer John Waite and others over U.S.
copyright law's 'termination right.' The right is supposed to give
artists a way to take control of their old music. But Waite vs. UMG
argues that UMG has ignored its obligation in returning masters to
artists when asked.
In the new motion filed on April 15, Waite and eight others asked
the judge to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit.
Certifying the case as a class-action will allow scores more
artists under the UMG umbrella to join the suit. "Defendants have
systematically and uniformly refused to honor the notices of
termination, instead treating these legally effective and vested
terminations as 'invitations to have a discussion," the Waite
motion filed on April 15 reads. "Defendants have been holding the
artists' rights hostage and have deprived the artists of the
ability to reclaim their rights."
John Waite first filed the lawsuit against Universal Music Group in
February 2019. He says the label has effectively refused to honor
the termination right. But the labels argue that most sound
recordings aren't subject to the termination rule -- unlike the
underlying musical composition. The label's argument falls under
the purview that recordings are 'works for hire,' which means they
are created (and belong) to the label in perpetuity.
The April 15 filing argues that UMG's 'fictitious' and 'erroneous'
arguments are without merit. "Plaintiffs seek class certification
here to tear down a central structural element crafted by these
record labels decades ago that they use to deny recording artists
their federally protected writes," the motion reads. "Through these
fictions and artifices, defendants steadfastly refuse to
acknowledge that any recording artist (or his/her successor) has
the right to take over control of the sound recordings."
The motion also argues that both UMG and Capitol Records have
failed to provide any evidence that these artists in the classes
were ever classified as 'employees for hire.' "According to
longstanding and well-established legal precedent, the mere
inclusion of the words 'work for hire' in recording agreements is
insufficient to magically transform recordings into 'works made for
hire,'" the suit continues.
By means of this class action, Waite and the other eight musicians
are seeking copyright infringement statutory damages, declaratory
relief, and an injunction against UMG and Capitol for future
violations of the Copyright Act. [GN]
UNITED STATES: E.D. California Dismisses Montgomery v. SSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONLYNN S. MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff v. SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-0525 CKD P
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the
Plaintiff's complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se
with a civil action. The proceeding was referred to the Court by
Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).
The Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As the
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing
required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a), Judge Delaney will grant his
request. The Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee
of $350 for the action. By separate order, she will direct the
appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from
the Plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the
Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly
payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the
Plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded
by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the
amount in the Plaintiff's account exceeds $10, until the filing fee
is paid in full.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. It must dismiss a complaint or portion
thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
"frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
Judge Delaney has reviewed the Plaintiff's complaint and finds that
it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
federal law. The Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. She will,
however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
The Plaintiff asserts he is entitled to certain benefits from the
Social Security Administration as a result of the final order
issued in a class action titled Clark v. Astrue, 06-cv-15521. He
does not elaborate much beyond that.
Judge Delaney holds that if the Plaintiff chooses to amend, hemust
be more specific as to how rights arising under federal law have
been violated. For instance, if he believes he has been denied
benefits due to him as a result of the Southern District of New
York's April 13, 2012 decision in Clark, the Plaintiff most point
to facts indicating he is a member of the class covered by that
order and then point to facts indicating how the Social Security
Administration has violated the order. Also, it is not an
acceptable form of pleading to simply refer the Court to
information maintained by Social Security as the Plaintiff does in
his complaint. He must plead all relevant facts directly in his
pleadings.
Finally, Judge Delaney informed the Plaintiff that the Court cannot
refer to a prior pleading in order to make his amended complaint
complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be
complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is
because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the
original complaint. Once the Plaintiff files an amended complaint,
the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.
Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint,
each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be
sufficiently alleged.
In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Delaney granted the
Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The
Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for
the action. All fees will be collected and paid in accordance with
the Court's order to the Sacramento County Sheriff filed
concurrently therewith.
Judge Delaney dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff is
granted 30 days from the date of service of the order to file an
amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil
Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local
Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket
number assigned the case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint."
Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Order
will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ykhryzkk from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Former SEC Officials Face Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tomiwabold Olajide at u.today reports that a fresh class action has
been filed by attorney Fred Rispoli against former SEC officials.
As shared by XRP-friendly attorney Jeremy Hogan, a fresh class
action has been filed by attorney Fred Rispoli against former SEC
officials Jay Clayton and William Hinman on behalf of Shannon
O'Leary and XRPL users.
The information shared on Fred Rispoli's Twitter handle reads: "On
April 11, 2022, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Mssrs.
Clayton and Hinman for tortious interference in ALL XRPL Network
Users' valid business expectancy in the XRPL Network. The Lead
Plaintiff and my client, Shannon O'Leary, decided to take a
stand."
Jay Clayton, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, has come under fire for his handling of cryptocurrency
concerns while in office. Clayton once stated that Bitcoin was not
a security, and its value skyrocketed as a result. The SEC's
lawsuit against Ripple was filed at the end of Clayton's tenure at
the commission. Nonprofit Empower Oversight has subsequently
launched a probe of SEC officials William Hinman and Jay Clayton on
possible cryptocurrency conflicts of interest.
In August 2021, the group filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)
request with the SEC, requesting communications between SEC
officials and their present and former employers.
Empower Oversight has obtained the first documents from the SEC as
a result of a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). Empower Oversight announced that the documents obtained
from the SEC consist of emails between two now-former senior SEC
officials.
These include 1,053 pages of emails involving William Hinman, the
former director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, and
46 pages of emails involving Marc Berger, the former acting
director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement.
Recently, Empower Oversight stated that it had received just under
200 pages of emails from the SEC besides the over 1,000 pages of
documents that the SEC released to Empower Oversight in February.
In recent updates to the Ripple SEC case, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Sarah Netburn has denied the Securities and Exchange Commission's
motion for reconsideration of the deliberate process privilege
(DPP) ruling.
James K. Filan, the former federal prosecutor, claims that it is a
"very big win" for Ripple in a tweet.
The court ordered the SEC to turn over an email with a draft of the
infamous Ethereum speech that was given by former top SEC official
William Hinman, among other documents. Back in June 2018, Hinman
stated that Ethereum was not a security, at a conference in San
Francisco. [GN]
UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Court Wants Info on Risley Suit Class Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NESSA RISLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION, d/b/a
UNISWAP LABS, HAYDEN Z. ADAMS, PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP, AH CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ, and UNION SQUARE
VENTURES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 2780 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York ordered the Plaintiffs to advise the
Court in writing of the date and manner in which they published the
Class Notice.
On April 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons who purchased any Tokens on the Exchange
between April 5, 2021, and the present and were harmed thereby. The
complaint alleges violations of Section 5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77e; Section 12(a)(1) of
the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 771(a)(1); Section 5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78e; Section
15(a)(1) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78o(a)(1); Section 20
of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t; and Section 29(b) of the
1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78cc(b).
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(A), requires that: Not later than 20 days after the
date on which the complaint is filed, the plaintiff or plaintiffs
will cause to be published, in a widely circulated national
business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising
members of the purported plaintiff class -- (I) of the pendency of
the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class
period.
Judge Failla ordered the Plaintiffs to advise the Court in writing
of the date and manner in which they published this notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4m4y9kpx from Leagle.com.
USI INSURANCE: New York Court Tosses 401(k) Plan Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blaine A. Veldhuis, Esq., and René E. Thorne, Esq., of Jackson
Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that
a New York district court recently dismissed, without prejudice, a
401(k) plan participant's putative class action complaint alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff alleged that the plan
fiduciary-defendants breached their duties of prudence and loyalty
by failing to properly monitor the plan's costs. Cunningham v. USI
Ins. Servs., LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54392 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25,
2022).
First, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants allowed the 401(k)
plan to pay recordkeeping fees that were nearly three times what an
alleged prudent and loyal fiduciary would have paid for similar
services. The plaintiff alleged that the fees were paid directly
from the plan participants' accounts, and indirectly paid through
revenue sharing with the recordkeeper. The court rejected that
claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege how she
calculated the plan's direct and indirect fees, and how the sum of
those fees was excessive in relation to the specific services
provided to the plan as compared to alleged "comparable plans."
Although the plaintiff provided a table of alleged "comparable
plans" and their recordkeeping fees, the defendants pointed to the
publicly available Form 5500s, which demonstrated that the alleged
"comparable plans" offered different services than that of the plan
in this case. As such, the court held that the plaintiff failed to
allege sufficient facts to allow for inferences that the
"comparable plans" offered the same "basket of services."
Second, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their
duty of loyalty by employing their own subsidiary as the plan's
recordkeeper and allowing the plan to pay the recordkeeper
"multiples of the reasonable per-participant amount for the Plan's
[recordkeeping] fees." The court held that the plaintiff's duty of
loyalty claim was intrinsically dependent on her dismissed breach
of prudence claim and therefore dismissed the breach of duty of
loyalty claim.
Lastly, like the breach of duty of loyalty claim, the court found
the failure to monitor claim depended on the breach of prudence
claim. Because a claim for breach of the duty to monitor requires
an antecedent breach to be viable and the plaintiff failed to plead
a viable breach of prudence or breach of loyalty claim, the court
dismissed the failure to monitor claim as well.
This decision is one of the first following the Supreme Court's
recent opinion addressing the pleading standards in these fee
cases. As there have been more than 170 similar class action suits
filed around the country in the last few years, this decision may
provide a roadmap on how district courts can address complaints
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty which fail to explicitly
provide the formula used to calculate the alleged imprudent
recordkeeping fees. [GN]
VERIDIAN: Falsely Touts Lidocaine Patches as 'Maximum Strength'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Veridian
Healthcare misleads consumers into believing its lidocaine patches
are more effective and longer-lasting than they actually are, a new
class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Adriana Rodriguez claims Veridian's lidocaine patches
don't stay attached to the body as long as advertised and don't
live up to their claims of being "maximum strength."
Veridian manufactures both Theracare and Healthwise brand lidocaine
patches, according to the class action lawsuit.
Rodriguez claims Veridian falsely labels on its lidocaine products
packaging that they will work for "up to 12 hours," provide
"maximum strength" pain relief and have a "stay-put flexible
patch."
Rodriguez argues that, in reality, Veridian's lidocaine patches
don't stick well to the body and come off "within a short time" of
application.
The lidocaine patches' strength of 4% lidocaine, meanwhile, is less
than competing brands, which have patches that contain 5%
lidocaine, the class action lawsuit alleges.
Further, Rodriguez argues consumers don't even get the benefit of
the 4% lidocaine since the patches don't stay attached to the body
for up to 12 hours anyway.
Rodriguez argues her claims are also backed by the Federal Drug
Administration, which she says issued a report on transdermal drug
patches revealing they "systematically fail to adhere to the body
and thus do not provide the claimed pain relief."
Veridian Class Action Alleges Misrepresentations Financially Injure
Patch Purchasers
On account of Veridian's alleged misrepresentations, Rodriguez
argues consumers like herself wrongfully paid a premium for the
product and thus have been injured financially.
"When consumers purchase pain relief products, the strength of the
dose is an important consideration," the class action lawsuit
states. "Thus, consumers are willing to pay a price premium for
pain-relief products that have higher doses."
Rodriguez claims Veridian is guilty of unjust enrichment and breach
of express warranty and for violation of New York General Business
Law.
Rodriguez wants to represent a nationwide class and New York
subclass of consumers who have purchased a lidocaine product
manufactured by Veridian Healthcare.
Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive
relief along with monetary, treble, statutory and punitive damages
for herself and all class members.
Also this month, Walgreens and Walmart were accused of falsely
marketing the effectiveness and longevity of lidocaine patches sold
by the retailers. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Aug. 18 Audi Transmission Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a new Volkswagen settlement resolves
claims the automotive company built certain Audi vehicles with a
defective transmission.
The settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of
model year 2010, 2011, or 2012 Audi S4 or Audi S5 vehicles.
Audi is a subsidiary of Volkswagen and manufactures numerous luxury
car models. The brand is known for its expensive vehicles, but Audi
and Volkswagen have been subject to numerous recalls in recent
years -- including a new recall for fire risk.
Although 2010 to 2012 Audi S4 and S5 vehicles do not have a fire
risk like current recalls, the vehicles allegedly have defective
transmissions that can cost drivers thousands to repair.
A 2017 class action lawsuit claims the vehicles were built with
defective direct-shift gearbox (DSG) transmissions. The
transmissions allegedly shudder, judder, rough shift, and
unexpectedly enter "limp mode" for seemingly no reason.
According to the class action lawsuit, drivers were forced to pay
out of pocket to repair these transmissions despite Volkswagen
being aware of the issue.
Volkswagen hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to settle
these claims with a class action settlement.
Under the terms of the Audi transmission settlement, Class Members
can receive reimbursement payments and warranty extensions.
Class Members who had to pay out of pocket for transmission repairs
can be reimbursed for a portion of their expenses, as long as the
repairs occurred within 90,000 miles and nine years of service.
Reimbursement rates will vary depending on the number of miles on
the vehicle and the age of the vehicle at the time of the repairs.
Repairs within four years and 50,000 miles will be 100% reimbursed.
From this point, reimbursement rates drop off based on vehicle age
and mileage.
The lowest reimbursement rate is 20% for vehicles with 80,001 to
90,000 miles and eight to nine years in service.
A full table of reimbursement rates can be found on the Audi
transmission settlement website.
In addition to covering past repairs, the settlement extends Audi
warranties to cover future repairs. Under the extended warranty,
one transmission repair is covered within nine years or 90,000
miles. Repairs are covered if an authorized dealer diagnoses the
vehicle with transmission shuddering, juddering, rough shifting,
and/or "limp mode."
The deadline for exclusion and objection was April 25, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the Audi transmission settlement is
scheduled for August 18, 2022.
In order to receive reimbursement from the settlement, Class
Members must submit a valid claim form by July 29, 2022.
Claim forms must include documentation of expenses, including
receipts, invoices, and other proof.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of
model year 2010, 2011, or 2012 Audi S4 or Audi S5 vehicles.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of expenses, including receipts, invoices, and other
proof.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/29/2022
Case Name
Gillard, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Civil Action
No. 4:17-cv-07287-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California
Final Hearing
08/18/2022
Settlement Website
DSGTransmissionSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
DSG Transmission Settlement
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@DSGTransmissionSettlement.com
844-957-4280
Class Counsel
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
Defense Counsel
HERZFELD & RUBIN PC [GN]
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Predatory Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Duncan-Smith, writing for Yahoo!, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against an online university,
claiming it has predatory practices that target Blacks and women.
Plaintiffs claim the school targets certain communities and then
forces students to take double the amount of hours of classes to
earn the degree.
According to a lawsuit obtained by the Atlanta Black Star, the
National Student Legal Defense Network (NSLDN) filed the complaint
on behalf of plaintiffs, Aljanal Carroll, Claudia Provost Charles,
and Tiffany Fair, in Maryland's federal court on Jan. 7 against
Walden University, LLC, and Walden e- Learning, LLC.
Carroll is a 49-year-old Black woman from North Carolina who
attended the school from September 2017 until her graduation in
October 2020.
Her co-plaintiff, Charles, a Black 51-year-old Louisianian,
matriculated between July 2017 and May 2021. Joining the two in the
lawsuit that says the university violated consumer protection laws,
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, is Fair.
Fair was the first to attend the school, enrolling in June 2016 and
graduating in January 2021. The Virginia resident is 43 years of
age and is of mixed race, living in a Black household.
Charles brings her Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims on behalf of
the ECOA Black Student Class, a collective made up of all Black
students who enrolled in and/or began classes for Walden's DBA
program in the ten-year period.
The North Carolinian and Fair bring their Equal Credit Opportunity
Act claims on behalf of the ECOA Female Student Class, consisting
of all female students who enrolled in and/or began classes during
the same time.
At the crux of the argument, the women claim Walden, a private,
online, for-profit higher education institution headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minneapolis, misrepresented the amount of courses to
earn a Doctorate of Business Administration (DBA) and the company
especially targeted Black and female students in its recruitment
for the degree.
In the 66-page legal document, the three plaintiffs claim they "had
been and continue to be injured by a multi-part discriminatory,
fraudulent, deceptive, and dishonest scheme perpetrated" by the
school.
The school allegedly used recruitment tactics to exploit Black and
female students interested in the doctorate program by distinctly
targeting advertisements in predominately African-American
communities, promising them swift matriculation through the
program, and "arbitrarily requiring them to complete additional
credits at a cost of close to $1,000 each."
"Walden lured in potential DBA students by advertising a doctoral
degree that could be earned at a reasonable cost, on a reasonable
schedule, when in fact the school knew and intended that degree to
be much more expensive in order to line its own pockets," the
lawsuit says.
It further stated, "Walden's top six markets for local TV
advertising between 2010 and 2020 were Washington, D.C., Dallas,
Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte, and Baltimore. In 2015, Walden
directed 99.8% of its local advertising budget to areas with an
above-median percentage of Black residents."
The lawyers call this in the lawsuit, "reverse redlining" as the
online higher-ed model targeted "minority communities with its
advertising and tailoring it to appeal to women."
As enrollees worked to earn their doctorate, the claim states, the
women and other students in the program from Aug. 1, 2008, to Jan.
31, 2018, started to notice additional classes being tacked on at
the end of their studies, during the capstone phase of the
program.
Enrollment advisors sold the "sixty credit hours" to interested
students by telling them it would only take three and a half years
to complete the program and cost them between $43,000 to $60,000 in
tuition and fees. The further promised "reduced costs and time for
students transferring credits from a prior degree or program."
"Walden knew that these representations were false," the three
claim. "And that the average student who completed the DBA degree
had, by the time of graduation, been required to complete far more
than sixty credits and pay tuition significantly exceeding the
stated amount—sometimes by as much as a factor of three and on
average an additional $34,300 per graduate."
The New York Times reports Aaron Ament, the president of the
National Student Legal Defense Network, said, "Walden lured in
students with the promise of an affordable degree, then strung them
along to increase profits."
"As if that's not bad enough, Walden specifically targeted Black
students and women for this predatory program, masking its
discrimination as a focus on diversity."
The filing calls the practice a "scheme" and alleges the school
"overcharged members of the proposed classes more than $28.5
million."
The document shows how Walden enrolls a substantial amount of
African-Americans and women in their program is exponentially
greater than the national average.
"Walden's doctoral student population is 41% Black, which is more
than seven times the percentage of doctoral recipients nationwide
who are Black," the lawsuit reads. "Likewise, across all programs,
Walden's doctoral student population is 77% female, which is 1.7
times the percentage of doctoral recipients nationwide who are
female."
Between the ten years in question, plaintiffs' proposed class of
Black and/or female graduates enrolled an estimated 830 people.
A spokesperson for the school said in a statement, that they will
"continue to work to ensure that those groups of people that have
been typically underrepresented in higher education know that
attaining an education and expanding their access to opportunities
is possible at Walden University."
The website boasts that the school has done the work to reach
underserved groups in education, proclaiming it is ranked "number
one among 380 accredited institutions for awarding doctorates to
African American students" and is the top-ranked "for awarding
graduate degrees in multiple disciplines to African American
students."
The three women are suing for compensatory and punitive damages,
asking for an award determined by a jury that would fully
compensate them for the financial injuries they have incurred as
students at this institution, including their tuition. There is a
request for their legal fees (within reason) to be met by the
defense. [GN]
WITHERSPOON HOUSE: Professor Sues Over Unlawful Living Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that landlord Jack Morrison has filed papers to
evict Professor Arno Mayer, a 95-Year-Old Disabled Princeton
University Professor, World War II Hero, and Holocaust Survivor.
Professor Mayer has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
the tenants of Witherspoon House asking for monetary damages and
injunctive relief for the unlawful living conditions in Morrison's
building. A copy of Professor Mayer's filed complaint is available
to the press upon request.
Princeton Professor Emeritus Arno J. Mayer is a world-renowned
historian and World War II hero. Professor Mayer is also a beloved
member of the Princeton community and Princeton University
faculty.
Professor Mayer's official Princeton University biography describes
him as "a legendary teacher and mentor of students throughout his
long career at Princeton. . . [who] has earned the respect and
affection of undergraduates, graduate students, and colleagues in
and outside the Department of History."
Professor Mayer's legal defense is being coordinated by his son,
Carl J. Mayer, Esq. Carl served as an elected member of the
Princeton Township Committee and runs the Mayer Law Group LLC, a
class action law firm that represents, consumers, senior citizens
and workers. Carl J. Mayer has been profiled on Sixty Minutes for
his public interest legal work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_J._Mayer
URL : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_J._Mayer [GN]
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Sponsor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 6th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on Monday, May 2nd.
The conference will be held in person at The Harmonie Club in
Manhattan. Major sponsors include Baird Mandalas Brockstedt LLC,
and Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A.
Sponsorship and speaking opportunities remain available.
For sponsorship options and details, contact:
Bernard Toliver, CMP
Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com
For more conference information, visit us at
https://www.classactionconference.com/
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***