/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220503.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 3, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 82
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Anderson Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Arnswald Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Christophe Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, McClung Says
3M COMPANY: King Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Thornton Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
A+ STAFFING: Vasquez Seeks OT Wages for Subway Cleaners Under FLSA
ABAXES LLC: Violates Truth in Leasing Regulations, Abaxes Says
AETNA LIFE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments in Fisher ERISA Suit
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Partly Compelled to Show Docs in Luxottica Suit
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Failed to Properly Pay Workers Following Breach
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Hamilton Seeks to Certify Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Padao Sues Over Unlawful Charges and Overcharges
AMERICAN INTEGRATED: Underpays Retail Associates, Salazar Alleges
APRIO LLP: Deadline for Class Certification Bid Extended to July 30
ATRIUM POST: Fails to Implement COVID-19 Measures, Stern Suit Says
AURINIA PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
AZTEC PLUMBING: Garner Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Urias Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
BASEL'S MARKET: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Couvillion Claims
BAUER HOCKEY: FLSA Collective Conditionally Certified in Barber
BEST BUY: Barnett Sues Over Unauthorized Debt Collection Practices
BIG KO-KO: Chae Wage-and-Hour Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D.N.Y.
BIG PICTURE: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines in Smith Sought
BKLYNTOQNS CORP: Romano Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers
BLUE CROSS: Graham Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
BLUE RIDGE: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
BRIAN CHUDZIK: H.C. Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Class Certification Continued to May 23
CALIFORNIA: Ashker Wins Admin. Bid to Seal Another Party's Material
CELLULAR SALES: Magistrate Judge to Approve Holick's Class Deal
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Shaker, et al., File Revised Class Cert. Bid
CHIEF FIRE: Brown Sues Over FLSA and NYLL Violations in S.D.N.Y.
CITATION COLLECTION: Naya FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CLEARMARKET INC: Faces Valadez Suit Over Constructive Termination
CREDIT LAW: Time Extension Bid to File Class Cert Response Tossed
CUSTOM FAB: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Ruiz Class Action Suit Says
DESIGN WITHIN REACH: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DHL EXPRESS: Faces Thorpe Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ohio
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Joint Bid to Strike Subclass Allegations OK'd
EDELEN BRANDS: Mello Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EL POPO MINI: Navarrete Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Smith Seeks Denial of Bid to Extend Discovery
FAT BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
FBA INTERNATIONAL: Bruneta Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Termination
FCA US: Briefing Schedule in Nuwer Suit Extended
FLORIDA POWER: Muccio Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Franklin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GATE CITY BANK: Koll Sues Over Improper Collection of Fees
GENERAL LOGISTICS: Mcpherson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GENERAL MILLS: Snack's Rye Flour Content "Deceptive," Melvan Says
GLENS FALLS: Court Certifies Classes in Richard Suit
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Seeks to Strike Class Claims in Wrobel Suit
GORTON'S INC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Tilapia Packaging
GRAYSON BENTLEY: Rojas TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HC CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avelar Suit Alleges
HEALTH OPTIONS: Abdelaziz Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
HEALTH RECOVERY: Scheduling Order Entered in Frechette Class Suit
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Katz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Wargo Suit
HISTORIC IMAGES: Van Buren, et al., Seek to Certify Collective
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Bedont Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
IMERYS FILTRATION: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Sched Nixed
INTUIT INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Trezor Phishing Scam
INTUIT INC: Levinson Sues Over Breach of Personal Information
IRONNET INC: Faces Grad Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
IRONNET INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuits
IRONNET INC: Securities Suit Filing Deadline Set on June 21
J-M MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Order Entered in Lane
JAMESTOWN IMPORT: Ingram Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
KADENCE HEALTHCARE: Stroughter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Thomas Suit
KISS NAIL PRODUCTS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KRAFT HEINZ: Alabama Man Sues Firm, Claims Lack of Lemonade in Mix
LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED: Evers Labor Suit Goes to S.D. California
LAWRENCE NURSING: Gilhooly Sues Over Residents' Death From COVID-19
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 21 Deadline
LILIUM NV: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
LLOYD'S LONDON: Must Show Cause Why ChaChaLounge Remand Be Denied
MARCUS POLLARD: Scheduling Order Amended in Fitzgerald Suit
MAZDA MOTOR: Bey Files Suit in S.D. New York
MCLEOD HEALTHCARE: Conditional Certification Sought in Wilkes Suit
MDL 2873: Bid to Transfer to Johnson v. 3M to D.S.C. Denied
MDL 3025: 11 Cases Consolidated in P&G Aerosol Liability Row
MEDSCAN LABORATORY: Henke Files Suit in D. North Dakota
MICHIGAN: Ryan Class Status Bid Tossed without Prejudice
MINDGEEK SARL: Faces $500 Million Suit Over Site's Illegal Content
MISSION LANE: Abdelaziz Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Burnett Suit
NATIONAL CLAIMS: Filing of Class Status Bid Continued to May 5
NATIONAL GRID: Ct. Amends Class Certification Scheduling Deadlines
NCAA: Court Modifies Case Schedule in House Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Underpays Motor Vehicle Operators, Moreno Claims
NEW YORK: Cardew Seeks Extension to File Class Status Bid
NEXT STOP: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NGL ENERGY: Amended Class Cert. Sched Order Entered in Underwood
NISSAN MOTOR: Urias Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
NOOM AUTORENEWAL: Reaches $56 Million Class Action Settlement
NORTHWEST EXTERIORS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NURTURE INC: Thomas Sues Over Unhealthy Baby, Tot Snacks
ONTRAK INC: Stockholder Faces Vega Suit in DE Court
PEPSICO INC: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Vidaud Alleges
PEPSICO INC: King Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PERMANENT GENERAL: Connor Wins Bid for Class Certification
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 6 Deadline
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Labella Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Martinez Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Martorana Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
PROSOURCEFIT HOLDINGS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUEEN CITY: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Proper Wages, Olson Says
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Tabai Sues Over Consumer Collection Practices
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC: Cardoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RODAN + FIELDS: Settled Lawsuit Over Lash Serum For $38-MM
SAM'S WEST: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
SARMA COLLECTIONS: Court Dismisses Weisz's Amended FDCPA Complaint
SELECT REHABILITATION: McLaughlin Seeks Conditional Certification
SELENE FINANCE: Weinberger Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
SHARED IMAGING: Seeks Denial of Ranger Provisional Cert. Bid
SMITH-EMERY: Arbuckle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Machine Generates Toxic Ozone, Phillips Suit Says
SOUTHERN FIDELITY: Bid for Leave to File Surreply OK'd
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Seeks Reconsideration of March 29, 2022 Order
SPLENDID SMILES: Gervasi Sues Over Discrimination
STAR FINANCIAL: Ind. App. Flips Arbitration Order in Decker Suit
STATE FARM: Bid to Stay Discovery in Nichols Class Suit Denied
TARGET CORPORATION: Bujalski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Rosen Law Reminds of May 2 Deadline
TESLA INC: Ruiz PAGA Suit Removed to C.D. California
THIRD WORTHINGTON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ranney Alleges
TOM BIRDSEY: Kohlberg Suit Removed to S.D. New York
TRANSUNION LLC: Konig Files Bid for Class Certification
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Ratcliff Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
TYSON FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says
TYSON FOODS: Freeman Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
UNITED SERVICES: Coleman, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
UNITED SERVICES: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought
UNITED STATES: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 6
UNKNOWN BURGESS: Willie Curtis Losses Class Certification Bid
URION CONSTRUCTION: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Ramirez Suit Says
USA INTERIORS: Cashabamba Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
UTILIKON LLC: Schwartz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
VENTURE SOLAR: Perrong Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 13, 2023
VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Williams Suit Remanded to Super. Court
VITAMINS BECAUSE: Bid to Exclude Kalman Testimony in Malgeri Denied
VMC-CPT KFORCE: Whiteman Seeks to Certify Class of Recruiters
W.E.K. ENTERPRISES: Nelson Files Second Bid for Conditional Status
W.M.E RESTAURANT: Olivares Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WALGREEN CO: Theda Jackson-Mau Seeks to Certify Class Action
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Gray Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WATERFORD HOTEL: Paquin FLSA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
WAWA INC: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Has Final Approval
WAWA INC: Court Issues Final Order in Data Security Class Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: Writ of Prohibition Bid in Whittington Suit Denied
WESTERN FUNDING: Gentles Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
WILSON LOGISTICS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 16
WILSON SPORTING: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WISCONSIN: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Class Certification Bid
WORLDWIDE OILFIELD: Jones Sues to Recover Back Wages
*********
3M COMPANY: Anderson Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
TULLY ANDERSON, 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-01348-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 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.
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 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: Arnswald Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEN ARNSWALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01343-RMG
(D.S.C., April 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his 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 civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Christophe Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE CHRISTOPHE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01342-RMG
(D.S.C., April 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his 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 civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, McClung Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE MCCLUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01346-RMG
(D.S.C., April 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and civilian firefighters, 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 prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: King Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01345-RMG
(D.S.C., April 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and civilian firefighters, 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 prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Thornton Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEANNE THORNTON, 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-01349-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 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 her 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 members, 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 thyroid disease and
commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention, 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
A+ STAFFING: Vasquez Seeks OT Wages for Subway Cleaners Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. A+ STAFFING LLC, A+ STUDENT STAFFING LLC, MACK STAFFING
SERVICES, ROBERT MACK, Case No. 1:22-cv-02306 (E.D.N.Y., April 22,
2022) contends that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by knowingly requiring, suffering, or permitting her
and other members of the putative FLSA Collective ("Collective
Members") to work more than 40 hours per week without properly
paying them overtime wages.
The Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated subway cleaners employed by Defendants in New
York City as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 to remedy the following violations of the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"):
a. Failure to pay overtime as required by the New York Minimum
Wage Act, New York Labor Law §§ 650–655, and supporting
regulations.
b. Failure to provide wage notices and wage statements as
required by the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL
section 195, and supporting regulations
c. Failure to provide Plaintiff with paid sick leave as required
by the New York State Paid Sick Leave Law, NYLL section 196-
b, and supporting regulations.
A-plus Staffing is a staffing and recruiting company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Margaret A. Malloy
Brendan Sweeney, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
80 Broad Street, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (518) 692-3748
E-mail: mmalloy@workingsolutionsnyc.com
bsweeney@workingsolutionsnyc.com
ABAXES LLC: Violates Truth in Leasing Regulations, Abaxes Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABAXES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VL TRUCKING, INC.; ALEX NEDELTCHEV; and
VOLODYMYR LYNEVYCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02109 (N.D., Ill.,
April 22, 2022), seek this action against Defendants for violations
of federal Truth in Leasing regulations and fraud.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
include federally mandated lease provisions that would protect the
rights of its drivers and allow those drivers to receive the full
compensation owed to them.
The Defendants employed a brazen and widespread scheme to defraud
the Plaintiff. The scheme was a regular business practice that
involved directly lying to the Plaintiff about its true
compensation and secretly forging counterfeit Rate Confirmations
issued by the Defendants' customers before sending those Rate
Confirmations on to the Plaintiff, says the suit.
VL TRUCKING, INC. is an asset based, full truckload carrier,
servicing 48 states with headquarters in Cedar Rapids, IA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caesar A. Tabet, Esq.
Daniel L. Stanner, Esq.
Nicole R. Marcotte, Esq.
TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC
209 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 762-9450
Facsimile: (312) 762-9451
Email: ctabet@tdrlawfirm.com
dstanner@tdrlawfirm.com
nmarcotte@tdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Steve McCann, Esq.
BALL & MCCANN, P.C.
161 North Clark Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (872) 205-6556
Facsimile: (872) 204-0244
Email: Steve@BallMcCannLaw.com
AETNA LIFE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments in Fisher ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELINE FISHER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Docket Nos. 20-3148,
20-3804, 21-1 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the district courts' grants of summary judgment.
The case arises from three separate but related appeals of
Jacqueline Fisher, which the Second Circuit heard in tandem. First,
Fisher appeals from the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Woods, J.) granting judgment to
Aetna on Count I of Fisher's claim for breach of contract under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") regarding
her 2014 health insurance plan with Aetna. Second, Fisher appeals
from the judgment of the district court (Sullivan, J.) granting
judgment to Aetna on Fisher's claim for breach of contract under
ERISA regarding her 2015 health insurance plan. Third, Fisher takes
an interlocutory appeal from the non-final order of the district
court (Woods, J.) ruling in favor of Aetna on Count II of Fisher's
2014 breach of contract claim under ERISA.
In Ms. Fisher's complaint regarding her 2014 health insurance plan,
Count I alleged that the document Fisher received on Jan. 9, 2014
("January 9 Document") was the governing health insurance contract
between the parties and Aetna breached that contract by failing to
reimburse Fisher for her purchases of EffexorXR, a brand-name
antidepressant. Aetna argued that the insurance contract was
governed by the terms provided in a document Fisher received on
February 19 ("February 19 Document"). The February 19 Document,
unlike the January 9 Document, contained a "Choose Generic" clause
which required insurees who elected to take a brand-name drug, to
pay the price difference between the brand-name drug and its
generic equivalent.
Count II alleged, in the alternative, that even if the document
Fisher received on February 19 governed the health insurance
contract between the parties, Aetna had breached that contract by
failing to reimburse Fisher for her purchases of EffexorXR.
Additionally, for both counts, Fisher alleged that Aetna breached
its obligations by failing to pay for Fisher's purchases of
EffexorXR after she met her out-of-pocket limit.
The district court (Woods, J.) held a bench trial and called its
own witnesses. Ultimately, the district court granted judgment to
Aetna on Count I. The district court concluded that, because Fisher
was on 'inquiry notice,' the February 19 Document governed the
contract of insurance between the parties. Because the February 19
Document included a "Choose Generic" clause, Fisher was required to
pay the difference between EffexorXR and its generic equivalent.
Therefore, Aetna did not breach the contract by charging Fisher for
the cost difference between EffexorXR and its generic equivalent.
As to Count II, the district court granted partial summary judgment
to Aetna holding that Aetna properly applied the family
out-of-pocket limit to Fisher's claims and that her purchases of
EffexorXR did not count toward her out-of-pocket limit.
Ms. Fisher brought a second complaint, this time regarding her 2015
health insurance plan, which largely reprised her allegations in
Count II. After remanding to Aetna for a recalculation of Fisher's
benefits, the district court (Sullivan, J.) granted summary
judgment to Aetna holding that Fisher was not entitled to a
judgment for her copay differential and that the ACA was ambiguous
on whether the individual or family out-of-pocket limit applied to
an individual on a family health insurance plan, so the terms of
the insurance contract controlled.
Ms. Fisher appeals the decisions of the district courts, arguing
that the district courts erred in finding that she was on inquiry
notice, that she is entitled to a judgment for Aetna's
miscalculation of her copay differential, that the ACA provided
that the individual out-of-pocket limit applied to her, and that
the ACA required Aetna to apply the brand-generic cost differential
charge to Fisher's out-of-pocket limit.
The Second Circuit concludes that the district court properly found
that Fisher was on inquiry notice because the terms of the February
19 Document were obvious and called to Fisher's attention in the
January 9 Document as well as through her health insurance broker.
It also agrees that, because Aetna's decision on remand to award
her the copay differential she requested was not arbitrary or
capricious, Fisher is not entitled to judgment. Moreover, because
the language of the ACA is ambiguous as to whether the individual
out-of-pocket limit applies to an individual on an other than
self-only plan, the Second Circuit concludes the language of the
insurance contract controls and that the controlling regulations
mandating otherwise did not go into effect until 2016. Finally, the
ACA does not provide that Aetna apply the brand-generic cost
differential to Fisher's out-of-pocket limit because her purchases
of EffexorXR were not a covered service under the terms of the
ACA.
For these reasons, the Second Circuit affirmed the district courts'
grants of summary judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4zr9wu6w from Leagle.com.
WILLIAM DUNNEGAN -- wd@dunnegan.com -- Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC
(Laura Scileppi, Richard Weiss, on the brief), in New York City,
for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
EVAN YOUNG -- megan.young@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P.
(Earl B. Austin, on the brief), in New York City, for the
Defendant-Appellee.
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Partly Compelled to Show Docs in Luxottica Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ GLOBAL
RISKS US INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-698 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
granted in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel documents from the
Defendant.
I. Background
Luxottica of America, Inc., an eyeware retailer, is insured by
Allianz. Luxottica is actively defending class-action lawsuits
("underlying litigation") related to the marketing of its "AccuFit"
service. Allianz initially paid for Luxottica's defense in the
underlying litigation. Three years later, Allianz reversed course,
arguing that the claims asserted against Luxottica in the
underlying litigation were not covered by the policy. Allianz
stopped defending Luxottica in the underlying litigation and asked
Luxottica to reimburse it for expenses already paid.
Luxottica filed the present case to, inter alia, compel Allianz to
pay for its defense in the underlying litigation. It also asserts a
breach of contract, a duty to defend, and a bad-faith claim against
Allianz. Allianz has counterclaimed for the amounts paid.
Diversity of the parties is the basis for the Court's
jurisdiction.
The parties charted a litigation course whereby the Court would
first decide the issue of the duty to defend. On full briefing, the
Court found that Allianz had a duty to defend Luxottica in the
underlying litigation. Allianz, perhaps with some wavering, has
resumed paying for Luxottica's defense costs in the underlying
litigation.
Now the parties have run into several discovery disputes. The Court
has conducted more than one informal discovery conference to no
avail. The parties have filed briefing and submitted documents for
in camera review. The Court duly resolves the disputes properly
before it.
II. Analysis
Luxottica seeks information related to claim handling materials.
Allianz asserts these are protected by the work-product doctrine,
attorney client privilege, and argues that some of the requests
seek irrelevant documents. Similarly, Allianz seeks documents
related to Luxottica's defense in the underlying litigation and a
host of other relief to which Luxottica has put forth a variety of
defenses.
A. Indemnity reserve data in redacted emails
Allianz has redacted indemnity reserve information from 38 emails
it produced to Luxottica. Luxottica has moved to compel full
production of these emails.
Judge Black finds sufficient evidence that indemnity reserves
figures redacted from emails were indeed prepared in anticipation
of litigation and deserve protection as work-product. He holds that
Allianz has properly redacted its indemnity reserves figures on its
38 redacted emails. To be clear, by Allianz privilege log numbers,
those emails are as follows: 1306, 1322, 1581, 1625, 115, 1262,
337, 1583, 342, 428, 509, 1598, 437, 1601, 759, 760, 761, 762, 764,
765, 1604, 767, 1558, 775, 177, 203, 768, 770, 771, 772, 1372,
1374, 160, 121, 391, 1381, 1269, and 134.
Put another way, Judge Black has found no reason to apply special
rules or presumptions to reserves data when work-product is claimed
over them. As with other documents, the proponent must demonstrate
they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. Allianz has done
so with regard to its redacted emails detailing indemnity
reserves.
B. Allianz's emails with counsel
Allianz also claims privilege over redacted or totally withheld
documents with its counsel -- either because they are dated
post-denial of coverage and thus outside of the Boone exception or
because they are work-product.
Judge Black has reviewed these documents in camera and finds they
do indeed deserve protection as work-product. Redactions at Allianz
privilege log numbers 1597, 520, 10, 230 consist of the impressions
and opinions of outside counsel or messages sent to outside counsel
so they may express an opinion. Privilege log number 153 is a
document provided to outside counsel at his request and thus
warrants work-product protection. SThe in camera review of this
document clearly demonstrates that it is work product.
Luxottica argues that these documents are not work-product and that
the Boone exception applies. Based on the Court's in camera review,
Judge Black finds they are work-product. Thus, the Boone exception
does not apply. Accordingly, the following documents may remain
either fully withheld or redacted as the case may be: 1597, 520,
10, 230, 153.
C. Relevance objections to other Luxottica requested documents
Allianz completely withholds a series of 13 documents that contain
"only reserve data." For this reason, Allianz argues, they are
irrelevant to a bad faith claim and not discoverable for that
reason. This argument reprises a familiar split both among courts
and the parties in the case.
Privilege log numbers 1182, 1389, 1636, 1458 are auto-generated
messages in response to actions taken regarding reserves. Judge
Black questions whether all of these actually contain "reserves
data" -- because only one of them says anything about the actual
amount set on reserve -- but it has no doubt that they are relevant
because they "may cast light" on bad-faith decision-making or lead
to evidence regarding the same. He will order them produced. He
also finds the messages contained in 522, 1626, 1627 could lead to
discoverable evidence of bad-faith and therefore will order those
documents produced as well.
Allianz privilege log numbers 520, 1632 and 1370 are clearly
relevant, but also include indemnity figures the likes of which the
Court has already found is protectable work product. Accordingly,
Allianz privilege log numbers 520, 1632 and 1370 will be produced,
but Allianz may redact indemnity figures as work product.
Judge Roman can determine no basis for relevance of Allianz
privilege log numbers 193, 1593 or 1594. Those may remain
withheld.
D. Luxottica's communications with Blank Rome and the question of
shared privilege
A law firm identified as Blank Rome defends Luxottica in the
underlying litigation. Luxottica claims to have shared information
with Allianz regarding the underlying litigation. But it has also
withheld communications with Blank Rome, claiming attorney-client
privilege or the work-product doctrine. In support of disclosure,
Allianz argues that Luxottica and Allianz enjoy a "shared
privilege" or a "common interest" in the underlying litigation.
Judge Roman has undertaken an in camera review of the at-issue
communications between Luxottica and counsel to determine if they
relate to an issue on which the parties are aligned or in conflict.
He has, in particular, reviewed the following Luxottica privilege
log numbers: 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 36, 39, 52, 62, 67, 95, 96,
102, 103, and 260.
He finds that all the reviewed documents involve attorney-client
communication all of which pertains to either the issue of coverage
(which is still disputed) or to the issue of duty to defend. As to
the communications regarding a duty to defend, those communications
were made when that issue was in dispute or when litigation would
have been reasonably anticipated. Accordingly, Luxottica does not
have a common legal interest with Allianz on the subjects of these
communications. Accordingly, all of Luxottica's communications
and/or documents may remain redacted or withheld as the case maybe.
The Court will thus deny Allianz's motion to compel in this
regard.
Judge Roman also notes it would be overly burdensome to require
Luxottica to document every communication with Blank Rome in the
large and complex litigation. The request is simply overbroad.
Finally, as Allianz has requested, Judge Roman has also reviewed
Luxottica's privilege log for sufficiency of the log descriptions.
He finds the descriptions adequate given the information contained
in the respective documents and will decline to order a revised
log.
E. Allianz's request that Luxottica remedy its written discovery
responses
Allianz takes issue with Luxottica's responses to written discovery
requests. There are several sub-issues, but Judge Roman finds it
does not have sufficient information to resolve the dispute. These
requests will be denied as unripe. Two reasons compel this
conclusion.
First, the goal posts have shifted on what the applicable written
discovery requests are. Second, the Court has not held an informal
discovery conference with the parties regarding the written
discovery objections. Ultimately, the Court is simply without the
necessary context to apply these arguments to the question of which
of the requests are potentially irrelevant or overboard. For now,
Judge Roman will permit Allianz to serve revised written discovery
requests and otherwise deny Allianz's requests to compel response
to written discovery.
F. Other Relief Requested by Allianz
Allianz has requested other relief. First, Allianz requests an
audit of Blank Rome's files relevant to the underlying litigation.
Judge Roman, in his discretion, will decline to order an audit of
Blank Rome -- at least on an under-developed record and in an order
otherwise directed to discovery obligations between the parties.
Additionally, he struggles to figure out what more Allianz needs
from the underlying litigation in order to assess its defense and
indemnity obligations. Thus, Allianz's request is denied.
Similarly, Judge Roman will avoid straying into other matters of
communication between Blank Rome and Allianz. He agrees open lines
of communication are probably advisable. But it is another thing to
"order" communication involving non-parties. Even if the Court had
no questions about its authority to order a phone call involving a
non-party, Judge Roman, in his discretion, finds it imprudent to do
so. Thus, Allianz's request is denied.
Allianz states it has subpoenaed third parties and received no
responsive documents or else a deficient response. The third
parties in question are Aon, the broker in the Allianz-Luxottica
relationship, and Sedgwick, a claims management service which acted
as an intermediary between Allianz and Luxottica. While Allianz has
raised these issues in discovery conferences before the Court,
Judge Roman has not had an opportunity to hear from any
representatives from Aon or Sedgwick before considering the relief
that Allianz requests against them. Thus, he has no real awareness
of why Aon or Sedgwick have not responded to the subpoena, or
responded with alleged deficiencies, as the case may be. Allianz's
briefing says nothing of a meet-and-confer of any kind with Aon.
Allianz complains of deficiencies in Sedgwick's log but has not
detailed is efforts to discuss the issues with Sedgwick. For these
reasons, Judge Roman finds the dispute unripe and will decline to
issue an order compelling production from either Aon or Sedgwick.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Roman granted in part Plaintiff
Luxottica's motion to compel as follows:
a. Allianz will produce documents at Allianz privilege log
numbers 1182, 1389, 1636, 1458, 522, 1626, 1627 in full. Privilege
log numbers 520, 1632 and 1370 will be produced, but Allianz may
redact indemnity figures as work product as to those documents.
b. The Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied in all other
respects.
Judge Roman denied Allianz's omnibus discovery motion and denied as
moot its motion for leave to file a sur-reply.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2nt7nnna from Leagle.com.
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Failed to Properly Pay Workers Following Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak at classaction.org reports that Allied Universal
Security Services and a slew of affiliates face a proposed class
and collective action that claims they've failed to properly pay
employees in the wake of a 2021 data breach that crippled the
companies' timekeeping system.
The 23-page case says that after Kronos, the defendants'
timekeeping and payroll system, became inoperable in December 2021
due to a cyberattack, Allied Universal failed to take the necessary
steps to accurately track workers' hours and pay them due overtime
wages.
"Allied Universal 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,"
the complaint alleges. "But it didn't."
Instead of paying workers for their actual hours, Allied Universal
based their wages on prior pay periods or "reduced payroll
estimates" that failed to account for some of the workers' time,
the lawsuit claims.
As a result, the economic burden of the Kronos data breach was
placed on the shoulders of "front-line workers-average
Americans-who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages to
make ends meet," the suit contends.
The case alleges Allied Universal's apparent failure to pay
employees the entirety of their wages, including overtime, violates
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and several California
statutes.
The lawsuit relays that Allied Universal, a security services
company who employs over 800,000 workers, has used the Kronos
timekeeping and payroll system since at least December 11, 2021,
when the system was the target of a ransomware attack. In the wake
of the breach, the defendants have used various methods to estimate
workers' hours, including by paying them according to their
scheduled hours or simply duplicating a prior paycheck, the case
states.
Per the suit, this practice has many times resulted in workers
being paid less than they were owed, especially for overtime
hours.
The plaintiff in the case, who works for Allied Universal in
California, claims to have been paid for overtime "[i]n some
instances" but not at the proper rate because the defendants failed
to make the required adjustments for shift differentials and
non-discretionary bonuses.
"In properly calculating and paying overtime to a non-exempt
employee, the only metrics that are needed are: (1) the number of
hours worked in a day or week, and (2) the employee's regular rate,
taking into account shift differentials, non-discretionary bonuses,
and other factors allowed under the law," the suit specifies.
The case contends that Allied Universal was well aware of its
obligation to pay overtime at the proper rates given it had
"routinely" done so prior to the Kronos hack. Per the suit, the
defendants' failure to pay workers at the correct rates and for
every hour worked was "willful."
The plaintiff looks to represent current or former non-exempt
employees of Allied Universal (including of its subsidiaries and
alter egos) who worked in the U.S. at any time since the onset of
the Kronos ransomware attack on or around December 11, 2021 to the
present.
The following entities are named as defendants in the suit:
-- C&D Security Management, Inc. (doing business as Allied
Universal Security Services);
-- C&D Enterprises, Inc. (doing business as Allied Universal
Security);
Universal Protection Services, LLC (doing business as Allied
Universal Security Services, LLC);
-- SOS Surcurity LLC (doing business as SOS Security LLC, who does
business as Allied Universal Risk Advisory and Consulting
Services);
-- Securadyne Systems Intermediate LLC (doing business as Allied
Universal Technology Services);
-- Allied Barton Security Services, LLC (doing business as Allied
Universal Security Services); and
-- Universal Services of America, LP (doing business as Allied
Universal Security Services). [GN]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Hamilton Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN HAMILTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying case as a class action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23;
2. directing, that within 14 days of the Court's
Certification Order, Amazon to produce a class list
containing the names, dates of employment, mail and e-mail
addresses, and phone numbers of the following Class
Members:
"all classes of U.S. non-exempt hourly employees who
worked for Amazon in AMZL workplaces and Fulfillment
Centers throughout Colorado who worked more than 40 hours
during weeks in which they also worked on a Company
Holiday, from January 14, 2019 to present;"
3. appointing him as the Class Representative;
4. appointing David H. Miller and Victoria E. Guzman of the
Sawaya & Miller Law Firm as Class Counsel;
5. approving the Notice and Opt-Out forms; and
6. directing, within 14 days of receipt of the class list,
Class Counsel to send the approved notice forms via E-mail
and text message.
Mr. Hamilton alleges that Amazon violated his rights and the rights
of the putative Class under Article XVIII, Section 15 of the
Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Wage Act (CWA), the applicable
Minimum Wage Orders (MWO); and the applicable Colorado Overtime and
Minimum Pay Standards Orders (COMPS Order), by failing to pay all
overtime earned during weeks that they worked in excess of 40 hours
and on a Company Holiday.
This violation was the result of Amazon's uniform policies,
practices, and procedures of paying time and a half of each
employee's agreed upon rate of pay for time worked on a Company
Holiday, and failing to include that shift differential in the
calculation of the regular rate of pay.
Amazon Services offers many of the Web service platforms that are
Amazon offers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vjpPkt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
Victoria E. Guzman, Esq.
SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 839-1650
E-mail: dhmiller@sawayalaw.com
vguzman@sawayalaw.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Padao Sues Over Unlawful Charges and Overcharges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Padao, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Case No.
5:22-cv-00145-BO (E.D.N.C., April 12, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant who breached their statutory and contractual duties as a
result of unlawful charges and concealing overcharges.
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA") was enacted to address
this sacrifice, and seeks "to enable servicemembers to devote their
entire energy to defense needs of the Nation." The SCRA guarantees
that all debts incurred by a servicemember before being called to
active duty are reduced to a 6% interest rate, from the date
deployment orders are received through the ensuing active-duty
period.
To attract and retain the businesses of active military members,
Defendant American Express National Bank provides contractual
benefits that are more generous than required by the SCRA
(hereafter "Military Benefits Program"). Defendant markets heavily
to servicemembers as a bank dedicated to military members,
veterans, and their families. Defendant breached their statutory
and contractual duties to America's fighting forces by charging
interest rates and fees that were too high, allowing unlawful
charges to improperly inflate servicemembers' principal balances,
and charging compound interest on these inflated balances.
The Defendant then concealed overcharges from the thousands of
military families victimized by Defendant's practices. Plaintiff
and other class members did not discover that Defendant was
violating their rights until 2022, when Defendant sent misleading
correspondence and payment checks to some military families. When
Defendant's actions led Plaintiff to investigate Defendant's
compliance with the SCRA and Defendant's Military Benefits Program,
he learned that Defendant had committed wholesale violations of the
SCRA and other military benefits which caused damages to thousands
of military families, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff had one or more interest-bearing obligations to the
Defendant that qualified for and legally required reduced interest
and/or fees benefits from the Defendant because of an obligor's
military service.
American Express National Bank is a federal savings bank regulated
by the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
ZAYTOUN BALLEW & TAYLOR, PLLC
Robert E. Zaytoun, Esq.
Matthew D. Ballew, Esq.
John R. Taylor, Esq.
3130 Fairhill Drive, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Phone: (919) 832-6690
Facsimile: (919) 831-4793
Email: MBallew@zaytounlaw.com
RZaytoun@zaytounlaw.com
JTaylor@zaytounlaw.com
- and -
Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
Claire Tonry, Esq.
Alyssa Koepfgen, Esq.
SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
2317 E. John Street
Seattle, WA 98112
Phone: (206) 860-2883
Email: Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
Knoll@smithandlowney.com
Claire@smithandlowney.com
Alyssa@smithandlowney.com
AMERICAN INTEGRATED: Underpays Retail Associates, Salazar Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIVAL SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. and DOES
150, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13570 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 22, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys Generals Act including failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon
separation from employment, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide accurately
itemized wage statements, and failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a retail associate
from January 2018 until May 2021.
American Integrated Services, Inc. is an environmental contracting
company, headquartered in Wilmington, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
APRIO LLP: Deadline for Class Certification Bid Extended to July 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lechter, et al., v. Aprio,
LLP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325 (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy
Totenberg entered an order on motion for extension of time:
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification
is extended to July 30, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.
Aprio is a financial consulting and CPA firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
ATRIUM POST: Fails to Implement COVID-19 Measures, Stern Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF BRUCE STERN and DAVID STERN, as Administrator ad
Prosequendum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ATRIUM POST ACUTE CARE OF LIVINGSTON,
ATRIUM HEALTH GROUP, LLC, ATRIUM HEALTH AND SENIOR LIVING, ATRIUM
HEALTH GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 (DOCTORS,
NURSES, PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS, ETC.); and ABC
AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. ESX-L-002444-22
(N.J. Super., Essex Cty., April 25, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence and gross negligence, wrongful death,
and medical malpractice.
The case arises from the Defendants' failures in taking safety
precautions during the COVID-19 outbreak. As a consequence of the
Defendants' failures to take the proper steps to protect the
residents and/or patients at their facility from the COVID-19
virus, Bruce Stern, a resident/patient, died on April 25, 2020,
with his cause of death confirmed from a COVID-19 infection.
Atrium Post Acute Care of Livingston is a senior citizen center
previously owned by Atrium Health Group, LLC, Atrium Health and
Senior Living, and Atrium Health Group Holdings, Inc., located at
348 E. Cedar St., Livingston, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel G.P. Marchese, Esq.
THE MARCHESE LAW FIRM, LLC
93 Spring Street, Suite 300
Newton, NJ 07860
Telephone: (973) 383-3898
Facsimile: (973) 383-7349
E-mail: dan@marchesefirm.com
AURINIA PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Aurinia" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AUPH) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-02185, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Aurinia securities between May
7, 2021 and February 25, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Aurinia securities during the Class Period, you have until June 14,
2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes therapies to treat various diseases with unmet
medical need in Japan and the People's Republic of China. The
Company's only product is LUPKYNIS, which it offers for the
treatment of adult patients with active lupus nephritis.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurinia was experiencing
declining revenues; (ii) Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS
would fall well short of expectations; (iii) accordingly, the
Company had significantly overstated LUPKYNIS's commercial
prospects; (iv) as a result, the Company had overstated its
financial position and/or prospects for 2022; and (v) as a result,
the Company'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 $3.94 per share, or
24.26%, to close at $12.30 per share on February 28, 2022.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com [GN]
AZTEC PLUMBING: Garner Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Garner, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. AZTEC PLUMBING, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00260 (M.D. Fla., April
22, 2022), is brought against the Defendant who violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and the other re-pipe plumbers regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Prior to about September 2019,
the Plaintiff and the other re-pipe plumbers were paid on an hourly
basis. During this time, Defendant paid overtime wages. After
September 2019, the Plaintiff and the other re-pipe plumbers were
paid a percentage of each project they completed. During this time
and to present, the Defendant did not pay overtime wages. The
Plaintiff is owed overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours from about September 2019 to present. The common policy or
practice resulting in the overtime violations uniformly applied to
Plaintiff and the similarly situated re-pipe plumbers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a "re-pipe plumber"
from October 11, 2020, until February 20, 2022.
AZTEC is a Southwest Florida plumbing contractor.[BN]
Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
Conor P. Foley, Esq.
GUNTERFIRM
1514 Broadway, Suite 101
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Phone: 239.334.7017
Email: Jason@GunterFirm.com
Conor@GunterFirm.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Urias Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA URIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-22-005831 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION operates as a financial holding
company. The Company offers saving accounts, deposits, mortgage and
construction loans, cash and wealth management, certificates of
deposit, investment funds, credit and debit cards, insurance,
mobile, and online banking services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
BASEL'S MARKET: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Couvillion Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN COUVILLION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BASEL'S MARKET, LLC; BOCAGE
SUPERMARKET, LLC; and RHONDA LINDSLY, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00263-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., April 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and all
wages owed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Louisiana Wage Payment Act, conversion and misappropriation, and
breach of contract.
Ms. Couvillion began working for Basel's Market as a non-exempt
employee in August 2021.
Basel's Market, LLC is a food market owner and operator, with its
principal address located at 2125 Hood Drive, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.
Bocage Supermarket, LLC is a supermarket owner and operator, with
its principal address located at 7675 Jefferson Highway, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
318 Harrison Ave., Suite #104
New Orleans, La. 70124
Telephone: (504) 267-0777
Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com
- and –
Robert B. Landry III, Esq.
ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC
5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Telephone: (225) 349-7460
Facsimile: (225) 349-7466
E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com
BAUER HOCKEY: FLSA Collective Conditionally Certified in Barber
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brooks Barber,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. Bauer
Hockey, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00742-SE (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge
Samantha D. Elliott entered an order that:
-- Barber's motion for conditional certification and issuance
of notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) is granted;
-- The court conditionally certifies the following "FLSA
Collective," as stated in Barber's Proposed Order:
"All individuals who were employed by Bauer Hockey, LLC
furloughed beginning on or about April 13, 2020, through on
or about June 8, 2020 and did not receive minimum wage for
all work completed for Bauer's benefit, and who elect to
join this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);"
-- Bauer shall identify all potential members of the FLSA
Collective and, within 15 days, provide Barber's counsel
with a list of such potential members' names, work
locations, dates of employment, and last-known mailing
addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers;
-- The court authorizes Barber's counsel to mail, email, and
text message the proposed notice and proposed opt-in
consent form ("Opt-In Form") to all potential members of
the FLSA Collective identified by Bauer;
-- The court grants all individuals identified by Bauer a
period of 90 days following receipt of the Notice to opt-in
to the conditionally certified collective action; and
-- The court authorizes Barber's counsel to reissue the Notice
and Opt-In Form via mail, email, and text message to
potential members of the FLSA Collective who have not
responded within 45 days of the initial mailing.
The court concludes that Barber has, through his unopposed motion
and accompanying documents, satisfied his modest burden of
demonstrating a reasonable basis for crediting the assertion that
other aggrieved individuals exist who are similarly situated to him
in relevant respects. He has sufficiently supported his claim that
Bauer maintained a common policy or plan of failing to compensate
employees who worked for Bauer’s benefit while they were
furloughed.
Brooks Barber brings this action against his former employer, Bauer
Hockey, LLC, alleging that Bauer violated the FLSA. He brings this
action individually and on behalf of those similarly situated.
Barber alleges that Bauer furloughed him and other employees during
2020 and failed to compensate him and other employees for work
performed for Bauer's benefit during the furlough.
Bauer Hockey is a Canadian manufacturer of ice hockey equipment,
fitness and recreational skates and apparel. Bauer produces
helmets, gloves, sticks, skates, shin guards, pants, shoulder pads,
elbow pads, hockey jocks and compression underwear, as well as
goalie equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LAs5d3 at no extra charge.[CC]
BEST BUY: Barnett Sues Over Unauthorized Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIP BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO. INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-005885 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., April
22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its violation
of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
an alleged consumer debt between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM
in the time zone of the Plaintiff without obtaining prior consent
in violation of the FCCPA.
Best Buy Co. Inc. is an American multinational consumer electronics
retailer, with its principal place of business located in
Richfield, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
BIG KO-KO: Chae Wage-and-Hour Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOYCE CHAE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BIG KO-KO INC. dba KO KO COLLEGE
RESTAURANT and SUNGYOON HWANG, Case No. 2:22-cv-01938, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York on April 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of New York assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00376-DNH-ML to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements,
conversion, and unjust enrichment.
Big Ko-Ko Inc., doing business as Ko Ko College Restaurant, is an
owner and operator of a Korean restaurant located at 321 College
Avenue, Ithaca, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd., Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
BIG PICTURE: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines in Smith Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Big Picture
Loans, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01651-AR (D. Or.), Matt
Martorello and Eventide Credit Acquisitions, LLC ask the Court to
enter an order extending the class certification deadlines set by
the January 10, 2022 Scheduling Order:
Activity Current Requested
Deadline Deadline
-- Discovery on class April 11, 2022 July 11, 2022
certification
-- Motion for class May 2, 2022 Aug. 1, 2022
certification
Big Picture is a personal loan lender operated by the Lac Vieux
Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 11, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LknbAJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kristin M. Asai, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
601 SW 2nd Ave., Ste. 1800
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 243-2300
Facsimile: (503) 241-8014
E-mail: Kristin.Asai@hklaw.com
- and -
Bernard R. Given, Esq.
William N. Grosswendt, Esq.
LOEB & LOEB LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-2000
Facsimile: (310) 282-2200
E-mail: bgiven@loeb.com
wgrosswendt@loeb.com
BKLYNTOQNS CORP: Romano Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS CIMITRIO ROMANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. BKLYNTOQNS CORP. d/b/a ARUNEE THAI and
THARINYA PHINPHATTRAKUN, as an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-02333
(E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2022) seeks compensatory damages and
liquidated damages for Defendants' violations of state and federal
wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff’s employment with the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Bklyntoqns, as a delivery worker
and dishwasher while performing related miscellaneous duties for
the Defendants, from in or around November 2021 until present.
Although Plaintiff regularly worked 50-52 hours or more hours each
week, the Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate
of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 in a work
week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in
the FLSA and NYLL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
BLUE CROSS: Graham Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Julie Graham, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico,
Case No. 22cv474 was removed from the First Judicial District
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on
April 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00305-SCY-GJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico (BCBSNM) --
https://www.bcbsnm.com/ -- is one of the largest commercial health
insurers in New Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pierre Levy, Esq.
O'FRIEL AND LEVY, P.C.
P.O. Box 2084
Santa Fe, NM 87504-2084
Phone: (505) 982-5929
Fax: (505) 988-5973
Email: pierre@ofrielandlevy.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin E. Thomas, Esq.
SUTIN THAYER & BROWNE
P.O. Box 1945
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Phone: (505) 883-2500
Fax: (505) 888-6565
Email: bet@sutinfirm.com
BLUE RIDGE: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Ridge Cable
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Ridge Cable
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01441-GAM (E.D. Pa., April 13,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blue Ridge -- https://www.brctv.com/ -- provides high-speed
internet, TV & phone to our customers in Northeast and Central
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
BRIAN CHUDZIK: H.C. Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hon. Brian Chudzik,
et al. The case is styled as H.C., R.H., C.B., A.D., S.M., D.B.,
G.H., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Hon. Brian Chudzik, Hon. Edwin Tobin, Hon. Miles Bixler, Hon.
Andrew Lefever, in their official capacities as magisterial
district judges; Lancaster County; Cheryl Steberger, in her
official capacity as warden of the Lancaster County prison; Case
No. 5:22-cv-01588-JFL (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions: Civil Rights
for the Civil Rights Act.
Brian E. Chudzik --
https://www.court.co.lancaster.pa.us/150/Magisterial-District-Judges
-- is a judge on the Lancaster County Magisterial District in
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Tsai Ting, Esq.
ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
P.O. Box 23058
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 681-7864
Email: rting@aclupa.org
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Class Certification Continued to May 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa Pittmon et al v. CACI
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02044-CJC-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order:
-- Granting Defendants' ex parte Application for leave to file
a sur-reply in response to Plaintiffs' reply in support of
classcertification; and
-- Continuing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to
May 23, 2022.
CACI is an American multinational professional services and
information technology company headquartered in Northern Virginia.
CACI provides services to many branches of the US federal
government including defense, homeland security, intelligence, and
healthcare.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vNr22E at no extra charge.[CC]
CALIFORNIA: Ashker Wins Admin. Bid to Seal Another Party's Material
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD ASHKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW
(RMI) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted
the Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another
Party's Material Should Be Sealed.
The Court has received the Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion
submitted for the Plaintiffs' Motion for De Novo Determination of
Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge Regarding
Production of Documents Required By Settlement Agreement and
Exhibits A-D to the Declaration of Carmen Bremer in support
thereof.
Judge Wilken has considered papers submitted by both parties, and
found that the documents listed in the Plaintiffs' Administrative
Motion contain material that is sealable pursuant to Local Rule
79-5.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4rtsy6cw from Leagle.com.
CELLULAR SALES: Magistrate Judge to Approve Holick's Class Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAN P. HOLICK, JR., et al., Plaintiffs v. CELLULAR
SALES OF NEW YORK, LLC, and CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:12-CV-584 (DJS) (N.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge
Daniel J. Stewart of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York issued an order that, among other things,
directed the Plaintiffs' counsel to promptly notify the Circuit
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
of the Order.
In this Order, Judge Stewart concludes that he would be inclined to
grant the parties' joint motion for preliminary judicial approval
of the proposed settlement agreement, which includes certification
of a collective action consisting of the Named Plaintiffs and the
Opt-In Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), as well as
allocation of the gross proceeds of the settlement.
The case, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), came before the Court for a bench
trial following an extensive pretrial history. Plaintiffs Jan
Holick, Steven Moffitt, Justin Moffitt, Gurwinder Singh, Jason
Mack, William Burrell, and Timothy Pratt filed a collective and
class action complaint against Cellular Sales of New York ("CSNY")
and Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. ("CSK") (collectively,
"Cellular Sales"), asserting claims for alleged violations of FLSA
and NYLL minimum wage and overtime requirements.
In February of 2014, the Court so ordered the parties' stipulation
for conditional certification of a collective action. In October of
2015, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to expand the
collective, and 47 opt-in plaintiffs joined in the action. In
October of 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Defendants moved to decertify the Court's conditional certification
of the collective action.
In April of 2019, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and granted the Defendants' motion for
decertification, finding the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that
the issue of whether the putative class members were independent
contractors or employees was not capable of resolution through
class-wide proof. The District Court thus dismissed the claims of
the Opt-In Plaintiffs and ordered the action to proceed on behalf
of the current Plaintiffs.
The parties then consented to the undersigned for purposes of
trial. After trial, the Court found that the remaining Plaintiffs
("Named Plaintiffs") were employees of the Defendants. Based upon a
stipulation of the parties, the Court determined the amount of
compensatory damages that each Plaintiff would be entitled to. As
the prevailing party, the Plaintiffs were also entitled to an award
of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to both the FLSA and NYLL.
On March 15, 2021, the Court awarded fees and costs to the
Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $576,870.30 and $14,227.63,
respectively.
On June 26, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the
Court's denial of class certification, decertification of the FLSA
collective, and dismissal of the Plaintiffs' NYLL claims for
untimely commission payments, to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. On July 10, 2020, the Defendants filed a notice of
cross-appeal and conditionally cross-appealed the denial of
Cellular Sales' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for alleged
untimely commission payments, to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. Finally, on April 14, 2021, the Defendants filed a Notice
of Appeal contesting the District Court's March 15, 2021,
Memorandum and Decision regarding attorney's fees to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals.
With the assistance of the Second Circuit mediation program, the
counsel were able to negotiate an agreement to resolve and settle
the matters encompassed in the original appeal and cross-appeal.
Pursuant to the agreed-to settlement, the parties would stipulate
to certification of a collective action consisting of the Named
Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), for the purposes of settlement only. That settlement
agreement provided for contribution and settlement of the alleged
damages for all Named Plaintiffs as well as the Opt-in Plaintiffs;
a reasonable recovery for the Plaintiffs' and the Opt-In
Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid minimum wage and overtime; and a
reasonable compromise for recovery for the claims currently under
appeal.
As a result of the negotiated settlement, the parties have returned
to the Court and seek: (1) preliminary judicial approval of the
terms and conditions of the parties' settlement agreement; (2)
preliminary judicial approval of the Notice of Proposed Settlement;
(3) judicial approval of the Notice of Final Settlement; (4) the
scheduling of a fairness hearing; and (5) such other and further
relief as is necessary to effectuate the settlement.
Although not specifically raised in the Motion papers presently
before the Court, Judge Stewart questions the Court's jurisdiction
to grant a Motion for Certification and Proposed Settlement in a
matter that is still presently pending before the Circuit Court of
Appeals. He says, typically, "the filing of a notice of appeal is
an event of jurisdictional significance-it confers jurisdiction on
the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control
over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."
However, it appears that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1
permits district courts to issue an indicative ruling on pending
motions that may involve or otherwise implicate issues under
consideration on appeal. Under that Rule, the district court may:
"(1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3)
state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals
remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial
issue." "The district court may decide the motion if the court of
appeals remands for that purpose."
Having reviewed the Motion papers, Judge Stewart concludes that he
would be inclined to grant the parties' joint motion for
preliminary judicial approval of the proposed settlement agreement,
which includes certification of a collective action consisting of
the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-In Plaintiffs pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), as well as allocation of the gross proceeds
of the settlement.
Accordingly, he directed the Plaintiffs' counsel to promptly notify
the Circuit Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit of the Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to deliver a copy of the Order to the Circuit Clerk of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/anusshzc from Leagle.com.
GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH, & O'SHEA, RONALD G. DUNN, ESQ. --
vrdunn@gdwo.net -- CHRISTOPHER M. SILVA, ESQ., Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs, in Albany, New York.
CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA, CHARLES L. CARBO, III, ESQ. --
Larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com -- JULIE R. OFFERMAN, ESQ. --
Julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com -- in Houston, Texas, Attorneys
for the Defendants.
HINMAN STRAUB, DAVID T. LUNTZ, ESQ. -- dluntz@hinmanstraub.com --
in Albany, New York, Attorneys for the Defendants.
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Shaker, et al., File Revised Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMY SHAKER, TRACY
KNIERIM, LISA BARTA, and CHERYL WELLNITZ, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. CHAMPION
PETFOODS USA, INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Case No.
2:18-cv-13603-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(1)-(4), (b)(2), (b)(3), or, in the alternative, (c)(4) on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and for the
appointment of counsel and class representatives pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of Michigan residents
to pursue Michigan Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment claims
against Defendants ("CPF") with respect to a fixed set of
representations and facts that appeared on or were omitted from
every package of ACANA Duck and Pear, Singles Wild Mackerel, Free
Run Poultry, and Meadowlands dog food and ORIJEN Senior Class and
Regional Red dog food, each of which was prepared in the same
facility and pursuant to the same standard operating procedures.
Common evidence shows CPF deceived consumers on the Dog Food's
content and quality, information that is material to consumers and
caused them to pay premium prices.
The Packaging Claims and Omissions Are Uniform and Material Every
Dog Food package promises that it is "biologically appropriate,"
made with "fresh" and "regional" ingredients, and "delivers
nutrients naturally" or "nourishes as nature intended" (the
"Packaging Claims").
Champion Petfoods is an independent pet food maker.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OEjEiA
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Mark T. Tamblyn, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
mjt@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: kseely@robbinsllp.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20016
Telephone: 202-789-3960
Facsimile: 202-789-1813
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Joseph J. Depalma, Esq.
Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG &
AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
scruzhodge@litedepalma.com
CHIEF FIRE: Brown Sues Over FLSA and NYLL Violations in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RORY BROWN, ROSHANE POWELL, ROMARIO POWELL, ANDREW MORGAN, MICKEL
KELLY, REYNARD MORRIS, GAREY MILLS, GARRICK ROBINSON, MARIO TEAPE
and CRAIG LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CHIEF FIRE PREVENTION & MECHANICAL CORP.
and FRANK MITAROTONDA, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-03359
(S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, unlawful wage deductions, and
discrimination.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as grease duct
cleaners, supervisors, drivers, maintenance cleaners, grease duct
technicians, and/or project managers in New York at any time
between 2005 and 2020.
Chief Fire Prevention & Mechanical Corp. is a company that provides
cleaning services, installations and or fire safety services, with
its principal place of business at 10 West Broad St., Mount Vernon,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Resila, Esq.
SCHWAB & GASPARINI PLLC
222 Bloomingdale Road, Suite 200
White Plains, NY 10605
Telephone: (914) 304-4353
E-mail: jresila@schwabgasparini.com
CITATION COLLECTION: Naya FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LAUREN NAYA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITATION COLLECTION SERVICES LLC, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Court, in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on April 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-21255 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act by not providing adequate or accurate
information as to the ability to dispute the amount owed and by
charging and collecting a convenience in exchange for the service
it provided to the Plaintiff, and a claim for money had and
received.
Citation Collection Services LLC is a debt collection agency based
in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin P. McCoy, Esq.
David R. Wright, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, FL 33607
Telephone: (813) 223-7000
Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
E-mail: kmccoy@carltonfields.com
dwright@carltonfields.com
- and –
Aaron S. Weiss, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
700 NW 1st Ave, Ste. 1200
Miami, FL 33136
Telephone: (305)-530-0050
Facsimile: (305)-530-0055
E-mail: aweiss@carltonfields.com
CLEARMARKET INC: Faces Valadez Suit Over Constructive Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY VALADEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARMARKET, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13600 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California's Public Policy, the California's
Labor Code, and the California's Business and Professions Code
including constructive termination, retaliation, failure to provide
overtime wages, failure to provide proper meal periods, failure to
provide proper rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, and
unfair competition.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an administrative
employee from October of 2019 until her constructive termination,
on or about December 10, 2021.
ClearMarket, Inc. is a marketplace company doing business in the
County of Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 733-2498
Facsimile: (562) 628-5501
E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaum.haag.com
CREDIT LAW: Time Extension Bid to File Class Cert Response Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ensminger v. Credit Law
Center, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02147 (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Toby Crouse entered an order denying unopposed motion for
extension of time to file response as to motion for leave to file
instanter a sur-reply in opposition to plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Consumer Credit.
Credit Law specializes in all financial, credit and debt
issues.[CC]
CUSTOM FAB: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Ruiz Class Action Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAN ANZUETO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CUSTOM FAB GROUP CORP. d/b/a FAB-TEX, YAND
GIL and KIRK LOMBARDI, as individuals, Case No. 2:22-cv-02324
(E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2022) seeks to recover damages for Defendants'
alleged egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws arising out of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants.
As a result of the alleged violations of Federal and New York State
labor laws delineated below, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00.
The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.
The Plaintiff received his pay in a combination of company check
and cash each week. Although the Plaintiff regularly worked
approximately 96 hours during the relevant statutory period, the
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a
half for his hours regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
DESIGN WITHIN REACH: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Design Within Reach,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Design Within Reach,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03319 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Design Within Reach -- https://www.dwr.com/ -- offers the world's
largest selection of authentic modern furniture, lighting, and
accessories from designers past and present.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
DHL EXPRESS: Faces Thorpe Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
MARK THORPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC. d/b/a DHL EXPRESS
and EXEL INC. d/b/a DHL SUPPLY CHAIN (USA), Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-02035-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of Fair Labor
Standards Act.
DHL Express (USA), Inc., doing business as DHL Express, is a
logistics company headquartered in Ohio.
Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain (USA), is a logistics
company headquartered in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
333 W. Vine St., Ste. 1200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 286-8368
Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
E-mail: casay@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
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Joint Bid to Strike Subclass Allegations OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN GILE, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; RANDOLPH
GALLEGOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order granting the joint stipulation to strike subclass
Allegations and Not Pursue Class Certification Thereon filed by
Plaintiffs Brian Gile and Randolph Gallegos and Defendant Dolgen
California, LLC:1.
-- In accordance with Plaintiffs' stated intent and agreement
in the Stipulation not to pursue class certification on
their Labor Code claims on behalf of a subclass of exempt
Store Managers (Subclass 1) based on misclassification
theories in their Seventh Amended Complaint (7AC), the
Court orders Subclass 1 stricken from Plaintiffs' 7AC; and
-- 2. By entering into the Stipulation, the Parties do not
waive and expressly reserve all other claims, defenses and
challenges in this action, including, without limitation
with respect to the discovery disputes at issue and the
Defendant's defenses and challenges set forth in its
pending Ninth Circuit appeal and with respect to the 7AC,
and/or the claims asserted therein.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KwOaI9 at no extra charge.[CC]
EDELEN BRANDS: Mello Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MELLO, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDELEN BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-01311-RBH (D.S.C., April 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek and failing to pay timely wages.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid delivery driver from
approximately August of 2021 until November of 2021.
Edelen Brands, LLC is an owner and operator of Hungry Howie's
restaurants in South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR, P.C.
115 Elk Avenue
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: (803) 328-0898
E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com
- and –
Sean Short, 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: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edgewell Personal
Care Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03305
(S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Edgewell Personal Care Company -- https://edgewell.com/ -- is
an American multinational consumer products company headquartered
in Shelton, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
EL POPO MINI: Navarrete Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSWALDO NAVARRETE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. EL POPO MINI MARKET CORP.; BAKERY & MINI MARKET EL
POPO, INC.; and JESUS LEAL, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-02341
(E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages and
minimum wages for hours worked, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and cost pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
In September 2020, Mr, Navarrete was hired by the Defendants to
work as a driver for the Defendants' retail grocery store and meat
market business. He worked at least 60 hours per week but he was
not paid for all hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
200 Park A venue - 17 th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone:. (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Smith Seeks Denial of Bid to Extend Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD LEE SMITH
individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. MATT
MARTORELLO, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01651-AR (D. Or.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order denying the Defendants'
motion for extension of the deadline on class certification
discovery.
Mr. Smith contends that Martorello and Eventide Credit Acquisitions
request for three months of discovery on issues related to class
certification. The Defendants failed to diligently pursue discovery
during their requested three months; instead, they waited until the
actual deadline to request 188 categories of documents from three
Tribe-affiliated entities as well as the re-deposition of three
witnesses, all of which Defendants conservatively estimate will
take an additional three months to complete. The Defendants have
failed to show good cause for their delay nor the need for at least
three additional months to pursue this duplicative discovery on
issues irrelevant to class certification, Mr. Smith adds.
This litigation originates from Defendant Matt Martorello's
creation and orchestration of a lending scheme that charged
Plaintiff and other Oregonians usurious interest rates, exceeding
500% annual percentage interest, for short-term loans.
The lending scheme originated in the name of Red Rock Tribal
Lending, LLC (Red Roc), a lender ostensibly created and controlled
by the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, a
Native American tribe. In actuality, Martorello, who is not a
member of the Tribe, owned and controlled Bellicose Capital, LLC,
which ran Red Rock's day-to-day operation and received 98% of the
profits from the lending operation. After Red Rock was unable to
temporarily enjoin an enforcement action by the state of New York,
Martorello rebranded his lending operation in the name of Big
Picture Loans. Martorello then caused the Tribe to assume ownership
of Bellicose under the name Ascension Technologies, LLC, although
Ascension employs no members of the Tribe. Just as Bellicose ran
Red Rock, Ascension ran Big Picture.
As Judge Simon explained:
"The Tribe purchased Ascension from Martorello with a $300
million promissory note issued to Defendant Eventide, even
though Ascension appears to be worth only a small fraction of
that amount. Martorello created Eventide shortly before the
Tribe acquired Ascension, and Martorello continues to control
and largely own Eventide."
The District of Massachusetts also summarized the allegations and
evidence addressing Defendants' control over the lending operation:
"The plaintiff's allegations demonstrate that Martorello was
the mastermind and driving force behind the creation and
implementation of the alleged rent-a-tribe lending scheme,
including the creation of Big Picture Loans and the
restructuring of Bellicose as Ascension.
On September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the
Defendants. The Plaintiff settled his claims with Big Picture and
Ascension and dismissed them from the suit. The Plaintiff then
added Eventide as a defendant. When Defendant Eventide was joined
in the litigation, it attempted to derail the litigation by seeking
bankruptcy protection and attempting to force the nationwide
litigation to be transferred and litigated in the Northern District
of Texas.
The bankruptcy court, however, saw through the tactics, found a
"lack of good faith in filing and prosecuting the Bankruptcy Case,"
and dismissed all bankruptcy proceedings. In re: Eventide Credit
Acquisitions, LLC, No. 20-40349, Dkt. 288 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. June
18, 2020).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 13, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OJauRS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve D. Larson, Esq.
Steven C. Berman, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227-1600
Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
sberman@stollberne.com
- and -
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
John B. Scofield, Jr., Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
628 East 9th Street
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
jbs@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
FAT BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of FAT Brands Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT)
(NASDAQ: FATBB) (NASDAQ: FATBP) (NASDAQ: FATBW) between December 4,
2017 and February 18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important May 17, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities
class action commenced by the Firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased FAT Brands 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 FAT Brands class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3635 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 May 17, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and the Wiederhorns
engaged in transactions "for no legitimate corporate purpose"; (2)
the Company ignored warning signs relating to transactions with the
Wiederhorns; (3) as a result, the Company was likely to face
increased scrutiny, investigations, and other potential issues; (4)
certain executives, who are touted as critical to the Company's
success, were at great risk of scrutiny-potentially, at least in
part, due to the Company's actions; (5) the Company's touted chief
executive officer (CEO) and chief operating officer (COO) were
under investigation regarding transactions with the Company; 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.
To join the FAT Brands class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3635 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. [GN]
FBA INTERNATIONAL: Bruneta Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO BRUNETA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FBA INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., FADI ALI, and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13703
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California's Labor
Code, the California's Business and Professions Code, the
California's Government Code, the California's Public Policy, and
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to furnish wage and hour
statements, failure to provide meal and rest period compensation,
failure to pay wages in a timely, failure to pay overtime
compensation, waiting time penalties, unfair competition,
disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable
accommodations, failure to engage in a good interactive process,
wrongful termination, retaliation, and recovery for civil
penalties.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a logistics coordinator
from December 29, 2020 until his termination on September 27,
2021.
FBA International USA, Inc. is a supplier doing business in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
Jameson Evans, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
65 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 260
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
E-mail: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pierrelacour.com
jamesone@pierrelacour.com
FCA US: Briefing Schedule in Nuwer Suit Extended
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON NUWER, AMARILLIS
GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60432-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting
joint motion to extend briefing schedule:
-- FCA US shall file its Response May 3, 2022
in Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification
on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their May 24, 2022
Reply in Support of their Motion
for Class Certification on or
before:
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/397n4Kp at no extra charge.[CC]
FLORIDA POWER: Muccio Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
STEVE MUCCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-22-005926 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY the principal subsidiary of NextEra
Energy Inc., is the largest power utility in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Franklin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roderick Franklin, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FULTON COUNTY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01611-VMC (N.D. Ga.,
April 22, 2022), is brought for unpaid overtime wages brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the
FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees 1.5 times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Network Engineer.
Fulton County is a political subdivision of the state of
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Travis Foust, Esq.
Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: 404-873-8000
Fax: 404-873-8050
Email: tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com
dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com
GATE CITY BANK: Koll Sues Over Improper Collection of Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Koll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GATE CITY BANK, Case No. 0:22-cv-01021 (D. Minn., April
22, 2022), is brought to seek monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief from the Defendant, arising from its improper
assessment and collection of multiple $32 fees on an item.
Besides being deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable, this practice
breaches express promises made in Defendant's adhesion contracts to
only assess a single fee on an item. The Plaintiff and other
Defendant customers have been injured by Defendant's practices.
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class of individuals
preliminarily, seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive and
declaratory relief for the Defendant's breach of contract and the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and/or unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of St. Cloud, MN, and has had a checking
account with Defendant.
The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing retail
banking services to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Phone: 612-339-6900
Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AK 72201
Phone: (501) 372-1300
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
GENERAL LOGISTICS: Mcpherson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Logistics
Systems US, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nina Mcpherson, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. General Logistics Systems US, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00318125-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
12, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
General Logistics Systems (GLS) -- https://www.gls-us.com/ -- are
committed to providing customers a high quality shipping and
delivery experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 551-1223
Fax: (858) 551-1232
Email: deblouw@bamlawca.com
GENERAL MILLS: Snack's Rye Flour Content "Deceptive," Melvan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA MELVAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02114 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty
of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, and violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its snack mix based on rye flour under the Gardetto's brand. The
description of the product tells consumers its taste will be garlic
and the chips will be predominantly rye flour. In reality, the
product contains added caramel color, which makes the mostly white
flour product look dark, creating the impression it contains more
rye flour than it does. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known
the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have
paid less for it.
General Mills Sales, Inc. is a company that markets and sells food
products, with a principal place of business in Minneapolis,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
GLENS FALLS: Court Certifies Classes in Richard Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAPHNE RICHARD,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GLENS
FALLS NATIONAL BANK and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
1:20-cv-00734-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes
entered an order:
1. granting the motion to certify classes for purposes of
settlement and preliminary approval of class settlement
2. preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement;
3. conditionally certifying the Settlement Class, where Class
Notice shall be mailed to all Class Members in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Daphne Richard brings this putative class action against Defendant
Glen Falls National Bank and various Doe Defendants asserting
claims for breach of contract, and violations of New York General
Business Law (NYGBL) arising out of Defendant's practices with
respect to overdraft fees (Overdraft Fees) and non-sufficient funds
fees (NSF Fees).
Glens Falls is one of two subsidiary banks of the multi-bank
holding company Arrow Financial Corporation. The Bank was founded
in 1851 in Glens Falls.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kfRD30 at no extra charge.[CC]
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Seeks to Strike Class Claims in Wrobel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE WROBEL FOR HERSELF
AND HER SON E. W., LISA SIDES FOR HERSELF AND HER DAUGHTER K. S.,
ERIN CLAUNCH AND JACKIE CLAUNCH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DAUGHTER
K. C., TRACY SMITH FOR HERSELF AND HER SON C. S., JENNIFER WERSLAND
FOR HERSELF AND HER SON K. W., JULIE SWENSON FOR HERSELF AND HER
DAUGHTER K. S., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. GLOBAL TRAVEL ALLIANCE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00053-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.), Global Travel asks the Court to
enter an order to strike the class claims from Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint or deny class certification pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure
23(c)(1)(A) and 23(d)(1)(D).
The Plaintiffs cannot satisfy any of the requirements of Rule
23(a), and cannot certify a class under any subsection of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b), Defendant says.
The Plaintiffs assert claims that necessarily require a
fact-intensive inquiry of each Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' trip details. The Plaintiffs' proposed class would require
a traveler-by-traveler assessment of:
-- the details of each traveler's trip with Global Travel;
-- the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the itinerary and
travel plans for each trip impacted by COVID-19;
-- the reasons and circumstances underlying Global Travel's
postponement or rescheduling of each trip;
-- the options Global Travel offered each impacted travel group;
-- the individual communications between Global Travel and each
individual traveler regarding the alternative options offered
by Global Travel and the individual traveler's preferences;
-- each traveler's response to the options presented by Global
Travel; the options ultimately selected by each traveler; and
-- each traveler's individual reasons for making a particular
selection.
Global Travel is a member-based company that acts as a traditional
travel agent and is a one-stop-shop for all travel needs.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39r04q9 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
John Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON SHERWOOD WILSON
DEOLA, PLLP
401 North Last Chance Gulch
P.O. Box 557
Helena, MT, 59624
E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com
- and -
John Heenan, Esq.
Joe Cook, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
E-mail: john@lawmontana.com
joe@lawmontana.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ian McIntosh, Esq.
Mac Morris, Esq.
Kristen Meredith, Esq.
CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
1915 South 19 th Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
Telephone: (406) 556-1430
E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com
wmorris@crowleyfleck.com
kmeredith@crowleyfleck.com
GORTON'S INC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Tilapia Packaging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Manganis at salemnews.com reports that a new lawsuit is
accusing Gloucester-based Gorton's of misleading consumers by
claiming its tilapia is "sustainably sourced" on packaging.
In fact, the suit alleges, the tilapia comes from industrial fish
farms, many in China, where the fish are raised in inhumane and
environmentally destructive conditions, including being fed
antibiotics and feed that contains a potentially harmful
preservative.
The suit, which is seeking to be designated as a class action, was
filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. It seeks at least $5
million in damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and an
end to what it says is misleading labeling.
It's one of several recent lawsuits filed by a New York firm,
Richmond Law and Policy, that specializes in so-called
"greenwashing" cases, challenging claims by manufacturers and food
producers that use terms like "sustainable," "responsibly,"
"ethically" or "thoughtfully" - terms that have no legal definition
but that can lead consumers to believe that they are making a more
environmental, humane or healthy choice when they purchase the
products.
The firm has also filed suits against companies like Tyson,
Cargill, and Red Lobster, which claimed on its menu it was serving
"seafood with standards."
Gorton's, which is now owned by Japanese seafood conglomerate
Nippon Suisan Kaisha, Ltd., has not yet filed a response to the
suit. A message left with Gorton's corporate office, but no one had
responded to a request for comment.
"Gorton's claims about sustainability lead consumers to believe
that the products are 'sustainably sourced,'" the suit says.
"Consumer research demonstrates that claims like Gorton's suggest
to consumers that the tilapia is sustainably sourced in accordance
with high environmental and animal welfare standards."
"In reality, the products are made from tilapia who are
industrially farmed using unsustainable practices that are
environmentally destructive and inhumane," the complaint says.
"Thus, Gorton's marketing - which states that the products are
sustainable - is false and misleading to consumers," the complaint
alleges.
The named plaintiffs in the case are Jeffrey Spindel of New York
and Kevin McCarthy of California, who say they continued to
purchase Gorton's tilapia because they believed that it was worth
the additional cost for an environmentally-sustainable product.
The complaint includes images of packaging with the "sustainably
sourced" claim.
In a "frequently asked questions" section of the Gorton's website,
Gorton's does acknowledge that some of its products are
farm-raised.
"We also procure farm-raised aquaculture seafood, including tilapia
and shrimp, from various countries, including Ecuador, China,
Indonesia, Vietnam, and India," the company says on its website.
Most of the supply of tilapia in the United States comes from
aquaculture farming in China, other parts of Asia, and Central and
South America, according to multiple sources.
Courts reporter Julie Manganis can be reached at 978-338-2521, by
email at jmanganis@salemnews.com or on Twitter at @SNJulieManganis.
[GN]
GRAYSON BENTLEY: Rojas TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Adriana Rojas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Grayson Bentley, Inc. d/b/a
Buttercloth, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 25, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-21289-XXXX to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Grayson Bentley, Inc. doing business as Buttercloth --
https://buttercloth.com/ -- is a brand of ultra-soft men's dress
shirts made entirely of cotton, which does not wrinkle or retain
body odor.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Artin Betpera, Esq.
BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Ste. 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 760-1121
Fax: (949) 720-0182
Email: abetpera@buchalter.com
HC CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avelar Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS AVELAR; and MATEO GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. HC CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
GROUP, LLC; and JON HARRIS, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00292
(M.D., Tenn., April 22, 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 Avelar was employed by the Defendants as foreman.
Plaintiff Gomez was employed as carpenter.
HC CONSTRUCTION, LLC was founded in 2008. The company's line of
business includes highway and street construction. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
Autumn Gentry, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219-2392
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
Email: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
agentry@dickinsonwright.com
HEALTH OPTIONS: Abdelaziz Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
AZIZ ABDELAZIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH OPTIONS INC d/b/a FLORIDA BLUE HMO,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-005824 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April
22, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
HEALTH OPTIONS INC d/b/a FLORIDA BLUE HMO offers affordable health
insurance plans to individuals, families, and businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
HEALTH RECOVERY: Scheduling Order Entered in Frechette Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tiana Frechette, et al.,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Health Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered a scheduling
order as follows:
-- Completion of Discovery Related August 24, 2022
to Class Allegations:
-- Motion for Class Certification September 7, 2022
Due:
-- Primary Expert Report(s) Due: January 19, 2023
-- Rebuttal Expert Report(s) Due: February 23, 2023
-- Close of Discovery: March 9, 2023
-- Dispositive Motions Deadline: April 6, 2023
Health Recovery Services offers medication assisted treatment to
those who need help with alcohol and drug addiction.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lo0mfx at no extra charge.[CC]
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Katz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Revenue
Recovery Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Cliff E. Katz,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, Memorial Regional
Hospital South Auxiliary, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-21261-JLK (S.D.
Fla., April 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group --
https://www.healthcarerevenuerecoverygroup.com/ -- also known as
HRRG is a legitimate debt collection agency, specializing in the
collection of medical debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (331) 307-7646
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Wargo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER WARGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HILLSHIRE BRANDS
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20 CV 8672 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.
I. Background
The putative class action alleges that the Defendant misrepresented
to consumers that its product "Delights English Muffin" by the
Defendant's Jimmy Dean brand is made only or predominantly with
whole grain. Plaintiff Wargo, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, brings the action against the Defendant.
The Plaintiff alleges the Product's label is misleading because,
while the Product's front label prominently states "MADE WITH WHOLE
GRAIN," the primary ingredient in the sandwich portion of the
Product is enriched wheat flour. He maintains that consumers
"increasingly prefer whole grain foods because they are aware of
the healthfulness of whole grains relative to non-whole grains."
The Plaintiff avers that, due to the increased consumer demand for
whole grain products, "there are more labels which misrepresent the
amount of whole grain they contain," among which is that of the
Product in the instant case. He claims that under federal
regulations, the Defendant's Product is misleading because it does
not contain 8 grams of whole grain per serving as required by USDA
to make a whole grain claim.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's omission and failure to
disclose these facts is deceptive and misleading to consumers who
want products predominantly made with whole grain or contain a
non-de minimis amount of whole grain. He avers that the Defendant
deliberately "capitalizes on foreseeable consumer misconceptions
about the Product in its marketing and sales schemes." He also
claims that the Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher
prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers.
The Plaintiff alleges that he purchased the Product on at least one
occasion, including in 2020 at the Hannaford Supermarket in
Pawling, New York. He claims to be among a class of consumers who
bought the Product for its intended use, and that he relied upon
the front label's representations to expect the Product would
contain more whole grain than it did and a non-de minimis amount of
whole grain. The Plaintiff further claims that he would not have
purchased the product absent the Defendant's false and misleading
statements and omissions.
On Oct. 17, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the operative class action
complaint, asserting claims for (1) violation of New York General
Business Law Sections 349 and 350; (2) breach of express warranty;
(3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) violation of
the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (5) negligent misrepresentation;
(6) fraud; and (7) unjust enrichment. As relief, he seeks both
monetary damages and injunctive relief that would require the
Defendant to correct the Product's allegedly misleading label.
Presently pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). On July 26, 2021, the parties filed their
respective briefings on the instant motion.
II. Discussion
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendant for (1)
violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business
Law ("GBL"), (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of express
warranty, (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (5)
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, (6) fraud, and (7)
unjust enrichment. The Defendant seeks to dismiss all claims based
on several grounds, including: (1) failure to plausibly allege
consumer deception; (2) failure to adequately plead injury under
GBL; and (3) lack of standing to seek injunctive relief.
A. New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350
The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiff fails to plausibly
state a claim because reasonable consumers are not misled, or
deceived, when whole grain is indeed among the ingredients in a
product labeled "Made with Whole Grain."
After due consideration, Judge Roman concludes that the Plaintiff
has sufficiently alleged that a reasonable consumer could find the
Product's packaging misleading. He finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that the Product's packaging is misleading for
purposes of his claims under GBL Section 349 and 350. He further
finds that the Plaintiff has adequately pled the element of injury
resulting from the alleged GBL violations.
As Judge Roman has already concluded that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that the Product's packaging is misleading,
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims under GBL
Sections 349 and 350 is denied.
B. Negligent Misrepresentation
Judge Roman opines that the Plaintiff's allegations here only
describe a relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
which is that of an ordinary buyer and seller -- which does not
give rise to the kind of special relationship necessary to maintain
a claim for negligent misrepresentation. Because the relationship
between them was not so close as to approach that of privity, the
Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded that Defendant had a duty to
provide information to him. Accordingly, Judge Roman dismisses the
Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim.
C. Breach of Express Warranty
Judge Roman concludes that the Plaintiff's express warranty claim
fails for lack of timely notice. He alleges only that "he provided
or will provide notice to the Defendant, its agents,
representatives, retailers and their employees." "That allegation
is insufficient to show that the buyer provided timely notice of
the alleged breach -- the statement is wholly equivocal." It does
not allege that notice has been provided, only that the Plaintiff
"provided or will provide" notice. "If the Plaintiff had provided
notice, he could have written that, rather than pleading, in
essence, both that he did provide notice, and that he did not do so
but will do so in the future. Hence, the Plaintiff has not
adequately pleaded that he in fact provided notice." Accordingly,
Judge Roman dismisses the Plaintiff's claim for breach of express
warranty.
D. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
On the same basis on which he dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for
breach of express warranty, Judge Roman similarly dismisses his
claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. He
opines that "the U.C.C.'s notice requirement for express warranty
claims also applies to claims for breach of implied warranty."
E. Magnuson Moss Warranty Act
The Plaintiff also brings a claim under the MMWA, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 2301, et seq. To state a claim under MMWA, plaintiffs must
adequately plead a cause of action for breach of written or implied
warranty under state law. Hence, as his state law claims for
express and implied warranty fail, the Plaintiff's MMWA claim
similarly fails for the same reasons.
F. Fraud
Judge Roman concludes that the Plaintiff's fraud claim fails
because he has failed to plead fraudulent intent. He opines that
the Plaintiff's only allegation about the Defendant's intent is
that "its fraudulent intent is evinced by its failure to accurately
identify the Product on the front label and ingredient list, when
it knew its statements were neither true nor accurate and misled
consumers." That allegation on its own is insufficient because "the
simple knowledge that a statement is false is not sufficient to
establish fraudulent intent, nor is a defendants' 'generalized
motive to satisfy consumers' desires or increase sales and
profits.'" Moreover, while the existence of accurate information
regarding the product's ingredients on the package does not stymie
a deceptive labeling claim as a matter of law, it is certainly a
substantial barrier to a plaintiff seeking to plead a claim of
fraud." Accordingly, Judge Roman dismisses the Plaintiff's claim
for fraud.
G. Unjust Enrichment
The Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of his other
claims. The unjust enrichment claim is a mere repackaging of his
other claims based on the alleged misrepresentations on the
Product's packaging. It "relies on the same factual allegations and
the same theory of liability" as the Plaintiff's other theories of
recovery. Accordingly, Judge Roman dismisses the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim as duplicative.
H. Injunctive Relief
Finally, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for the Defendant
"to remove, correct and/or refrain from the challenged practices
and representations, and restitution and disgorgement for members
of the class pursuant to the applicable laws." The Defendant argues
that the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief because
he knows "where to look on the ingredient list to identify the
flour ingredients," and therefore cannot show an imminent risk of
future injury.
Judge Roman agrees. He holds that the Plaintiff does not have
Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief because he is
aware of the allegedly deceptive packaging, and therefore cannot
demonstrate that he will be harmed in a similar way in the future.
I. Leave to Amend
While the Plaintiff requests leave to file an Amended Complaint
within the last sentence of his response in opposition, Judge Roman
opines that he has not otherwise suggested that he is in possession
of facts that would cure the deficiencies that the Defendants
highlighted in the instant motion and that the Court highlighted in
the Opinion. The Plaintiff has had the benefit of a pre-motion
letter from the Defendant stating the grounds on which it would
move to dismiss. Nevertheless, he failed to plead facts that would
allow the Court to draw reasonable inference in support of his
allegations. Without such facts, attempts to amend is futile.
Accordingly, with respect to all those claims that the Court has
dismissed from the Complaint, Judge Roman will dismiss them with
prejudice.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Roman granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. He granted the motion
with respect to the Plaintiff's (1) individual claims not asserted
under the Class Action Fairness Act; (2) claim for negligent
misrepresentation; (3) claim for breach of express warranty; (4)
claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (5) claim
under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (6) claim for fraud; (7)
claim for unjust enrichment; and (8) request for injunctive relief.
Judge Roman dismissed all these claims with prejudice. He denied
the motion with respect to the Plaintiff's consumer protection
claims under GBL Sections 349 and 350.
Judge Roman directed the Defendant to file an answer to the
Complaint with respect to the Plaintiff's claims under GBL Sections
349 and 350 by May 23, 2022. He further directed the parties to
confer and jointly complete and file a Case Management Plan and
Scheduling Order by June 13, 2022. After review and approval of the
Scheduling Order, the Court will issue an Order of Reference to
Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy for general pretrial purposes.
The parties will contact Judge McCarthy within seven business days
of the date of the Order of Reference to schedule a conference.
The Clerk of Court is finally directed to terminate the motion at
ECF No. 13.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yptrskzp from Leagle.com.
HISTORIC IMAGES: Van Buren, et al., Seek to Certify Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katie Van Buren and Bret
VanDepolder v. Historic Images, Inc., Chris Galbreath, Evelyn
Ringman, and James Grant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02917-MSN-cgc (W.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. authorizing them to proceed as a collective in this
action for overtime and/or minimum wage violations, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of
similarly-situated Image Catalog Specialists employed by
the Defendant from December 21, 2017 to present who were
not paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours
worked and/or were not paid at least one-and-one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week.
2. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs'
counsel within fourteen days of the Order granting this
Motion a list containing the names, last known addresses,
last known email addresses, and phone numbers for Image
Catalog Specialists of the Defendants for the relevant
period, as defined in Paragraph 1 above;
3. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send notice with consent to
join, to all individuals whose names appear on the list
produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-class mail so
that they may assert their claims on a timely basis as
part of this litigation;
4. tolling of the statute of limitations for the putative
class as of the date this action was filed;
5. deeming the opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms "filed" on
the date they are postmarked;
6. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send a reminder notice 45
days prior to the deadline for the end of the notice
period with Consent to Join Form; and
7. directing the Defendants to post notice in an employee-
frequented area at all locations where putative class
members work.
Historic Images acquires and sells original newspaper photo
archives from around the country and makes a large portions of them
available on eBay.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 13,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kk7tJO
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14 th Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 737-7740
Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
E-mail: poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Bedont Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Actuarial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Tabatha Bedont formerly known
as: Tabatha Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01565-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 22, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC --
https://www.horizonactuarial.com/ -- is a leading consulting firm
that specializes in providing innovative actuarial solutions to
multiemployer benefit plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Fax: (513) 766-9011
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
- and -
MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
Building 14, Suite 230
3535 Piedmont Road
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 320-9979 ext 202
Fax: (404) 320-9978
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
IMERYS FILTRATION: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Sched Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT LEWIS, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
IMERYS FILTRATION MINERALS, INC., a Delaware corporation; IMERYS
PERFORMANCE MINERALS AMERICAS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:22-cv-00785-MCS-KS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order denying the Parties'
joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule
and discovery dates and deadlines:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Non-Expert Discovery Jan. 23, 2023 July 24, 2023
Cut-Off:
-- Expert Disclosure Jan. 3, 2023 July 3, 2023
(Initial):
-- Expert Disclosure Jan. 23, 2023 July 24, 2023
(Rebuttal):
-- Expert Discovery Feb. 13, 2023 August 14, 2023
Cut-Off:
-- Deadline to File a Aug. 22, 2022 Feb. 13, 2023
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File an Sept. 12, 2022 March 6, 2023
Opposition to the
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File a Reply Oct. 3, 2022 March 27, 2023
in Support of the Motion
for Class Certification:
-- Hearing Date on Motion Oct. 17, 2022 April 10, 2023
for Class Certification:
The Defendants provide natural, mineral-based filtration solutions
for major players in the chemical, pharmaceutical and beverage
filtration companies across the world.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xVFcRO at no extra charge.[CC]
INTUIT INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Trezor Phishing Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit, according to Bloomberg, names financial
software company Intuit and its subsidiary Rocket Science Group
LLC, responsible for Mailchimp, for failing to protect its data
systems adequately, resulting in one Illinois man's loss of $87K
from his Trezor wallet.
In September 2021, Intuit acquired Mailchimp $12 billion.
Recounting the Trezor phishing scam
On April 4, the Mailchimp service announced a hack affecting
"audience data" from over 100 clients, including crypto wallet
vendor Trezor.
Hackers used the Trezor email address to send bogus emails to
Trezor clients in a social engineering attack, requesting them to
click a link, disguised as a trojan horse, which looked exactly
like Trezor's app, informing the user of a "data breach" that has
compromised their individual account.
When users clicked the link, it redirected users to
https://suite.trezor.com - rather than the legitimate www.trezor.io
landing page.
The fake Trezor app exhibited features that rendered it almost
indistinguishable from the genuine Trezor app. For example, unless
an individual's trained eye saw the little dot under the "e"
character from trezor : "e," they would never have known. Using
special Unicode characters has been a known social engineering
tactic for years, and commonly associated with a Unicode domain
phishing attack.
No different from most phishing cases, once the disguised link is
clicked, it asks users to enter their personally identifiable
information (PIAA), including user names and passwords. Trezor
called the attack "exceptional in its sophistication" and indicated
that it was meticulously planned.
Tool compromised, said CISO
Siobhan Smyth, Mailchimp's chief information security officer, told
The Verge that Mailchimp was informed of the breach on March 26,
2022 through a customer service and account administration tool
which had been unlawfully accessed.
Sources inside Trezor told computer security news outlet Graham
Cluley, that a Mailchimp insider had gone rogue and was responsible
for the attack. The lawsuit also indicated that a Mailchimp
employee had clicked on a phishing link.
"We sincerely apologize to our users for this incident and realize
that it brings inconvenience and raises questions for our users and
their customers," Smyth stated.
"We take pride in our security culture, infrastructure, and the
trust our customers place in us to safeguard their data. We're
confident in the security measures and robust processes we have in
place to protect our users' data and prevent future incidents," he
added.
For more information on the case, you can track it by following
Levinson v. Intuit, Inc., 22-cv-02477.[GN]
INTUIT INC: Levinson Sues Over Breach of Personal Information
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Levinson, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. INTUIT, INC. and ROCKET SCIENCE GROUP,
LLC d/b/a Mailchimp, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, Case No.
5:22-cv-02477 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2022), is brought to recover
damages directly resulting from the Defendants' laxed data security
and failing to disclose the breach of personal information in a
timely manner.
While the cyberattack on the Plaintiff and Class Members was
sophisticated, the attack on the Defendants' computer systems and
network that allowed the cybercriminals to access the Plaintiff's
and Class Members' information was not. Rather, the Defendants fell
victim to one of the oldest cybertricks in the book: according to
reports, one of the Defendants' employees fell victim to a phishing
email and clicked on a malicious link. Accordingly, the unknown
hackers were able to pilfer Trezor platform users' cryptocurrency
from the compromised accounts, resulting in millions of dollars of
losses. The hacker's scheme was predicated on knowledge of the
email addresses of the Trezor platform users. Here, the hackers
gained the email addresses of the Trezor platform users by by
compromising Trezor's services providers, the Defendants Mailchimp
and Intuit.
The Defendants were retained by Trezor to provide an opt-in
newsletter to Trezor platform users. The hackers were able to
access the Trezor email list (and likely other insensitive
information) through Mailchimp and/or Intuit employee accounts.
Indeed, Defendants confirmed that hackers used an internal employee
tool to steal data from more than 100 of their clients — with the
data being used to mount phishing attacks on the users of
cryptocurrency services. The Defendants disregarded Plaintiff's and
Class members' rights by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that its data systems were protected, failing to take
available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever happening,
and failing to disclose the breach of personal information in a
timely manner. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that
Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information was improperly
handled and stored and was not kept in accordance with applicable,
required, and appropriate cyber-security protocols, policies, and
procedures, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois who had his data compromised
by the Defendants.
Intuit is a financial services and technology company and is the
parent company of the "Intuit Group Companies," including
Mailchimp, Credit Karma, Mint, Turbo Tax, and QuickBooks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
401 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 91942
Phone: (714) 651-8845
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
IRONNET INC: Faces Grad Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM GRAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IRONNET, INC.; KEITH B. ALEXANDER; JAMES C.
GERBER; and WILLIAM E. WELCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00449
(E.D. Va., April 22, 2022) is a federal securities class action
brought on behalf of all purchasers of IronNet securities (the
"Class") between September 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, on December 15, 2021, after market
close, the Defendants issued a press release entitled "IronNet
Reports Third Quarter Fiscal 2022 Financial Results," in which they
slashed IronNet's FY 2022 guidance, which had been repeated shortly
before the Merger vote and which was reaffirmed just months
earlier. The Defendants also admitted that, despite having first
publicly issued IronNet's FY 2022 guidance in March 2021, they did
not have any confidence as to when substantial revenues underlying
the guidance would actually come in.
On this news, IronNet's stock price plummeted from $6.80 per share
on December 15, 2021 to a close of $4.66 per share the following
day, a 31% decline, on abnormally high trading volume.
The alleged material misrepresentations and omissions of the
Defendants directly or proximately caused, or were a substantial
contributing cause of, the damages sustained by the Plaintiff and
other members of the Class. During the Class Period, the Defendants
made or caused to be made a series of materially false or
misleading statements about IronNet's business, operations, and
prospects. These material misstatements and omissions had the cause
and effect of creating in the marketplace an unrealistically
positive assessment of IronNet, its business, profitability, growth
trends, and financial prospects, thus causing the Company's
securities to be overvalued and artificially inflated at all
relevant times.
The Defendants' materially false and misleading statements during
the Class Period resulted in the Plaintiff and other members of the
Class purchasing IronNet securities at artificially inflated
prices, thus causing damages to the Plaintiff and the Class, says
the suit.
IRONNET, INC. operates as a cyber-security company. The Company
develops a collective defense platform to share intelligence,
identify, and collaboratively stop cyber threats. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig C. Reilly, Esq.
THE OFFICE OF CRAIG C. REILLY
209 Madison Street, Suite 501
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 549-5354
Facsimile: (703) 549-5355
Email: craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
- and -
Michael I. Fistel, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (470) 632-6000
Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
IRONNET INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. announces that a lawsuit was
filed for certain investors in IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) shares.
Investors who purchased in excess of $100,000 in shares of IronNet,
Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) have certain options and there are short and
strict deadlines running. Deadline: June 21, 2022. Those NYSE: IRNT
investors should contact the Shareholders Foundation at
mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554.
On April 22, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against IronNet, Inc. over
alleged securities laws violations. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose known adverse facts about IronNet's business,
operations, and prospects, including that the Company had
materially overstated its business and financial prospects, that
the Company was unable to predict the timing of significant
customer opportunities which constituted a substantial portion of
its publicly-issued FY 2022 financial guidance, that the Company
had not established effective disclosure controls and procedures to
reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely, accurate,
complete, and not otherwise misleading, and that as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false, misleading,
and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all relevant times.
Those who purchased IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) shares should
contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. is a professional portfolio legal
monitoring and a settlement claim filing service, which does
research related to shareholder issues and informs investors of
securities class actions, settlements, judgments, and other legal
related news to the stock/financial market. The Shareholders
Foundation, Inc. is not a law firm. Any referenced cases,
investigations, and/or settlements are not filed/initiated/reached
and/or are not related to Shareholders Foundation. The information
is only provided as a public service. It is not intended as legal
advice and should not be relied upon. [GN]
IRONNET INC: Securities Suit Filing Deadline Set on June 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. announces that a lawsuit was
filed for certain investors in IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) shares.
Investors who purchased in excess of $100,000 in shares of IronNet,
Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) have certain options and there are short and
strict deadlines running. Deadline: June 21, 2022. Those NYSE: IRNT
investors should contact the Shareholders Foundation at
mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554.
On April 22, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against IronNet, Inc. over
alleged securities laws violations. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose known adverse facts about IronNet's business,
operations, and prospects, including that the Company had
materially overstated its business and financial prospects, that
the Company was unable to predict the timing of significant
customer opportunities which constituted a substantial portion of
its publicly-issued FY 2022 financial guidance, that the Company
had not established effective disclosure controls and procedures to
reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely, accurate,
complete, and not otherwise misleading, and that as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false, misleading,
and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all relevant times.
Those who purchased IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) shares should
contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. is a professional portfolio legal
monitoring and a settlement claim filing service, which does
research related to shareholder issues and informs investors of
securities class actions, settlements, judgments, and other legal
related news to the stock/financial market. The Shareholders
Foundation, Inc. is not a law firm. Any referenced cases,
investigations, and/or settlements are not filed/initiated/reached
and/or are not related to Shareholders Foundation. The information
is only provided as a public service. It is not intended as legal
advice and should not be relied upon. [GN]
J-M MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Order Entered in Lane
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cambridge Lane, LLC v. J-M
Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-PJW
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order regarding
class certification briefing schedule as follows:
1. Discovery on class certification September 16, 2022
issues will be completed by:
2. Motion for Class Certification November 11, 2022
shall be filed by:
3. Opposition to the Motion will December 23, 2022
be filed by:
4. Reply brief shall be filed by: January 18, 2023
5. Hearing is set for: February 2, 2023
J-M Manufacturing manufactures plastic pipe, fittings and tubing
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3viq8Mo at no extra charge.[CC]
JAMESTOWN IMPORT: Ingram Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Ingram, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Jamestown Import Auto Sales, Inc. D/B/A KIA
of Jamestown, Case No. 1:22-cv-00309 (W.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022), is
brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendant in negligently and/or willfully using prerecorded
messages to call the Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
without Plaintiff's express consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.
To promote its automotive dealership, vehicle inventory, and
services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited prerecorded calls
without the requisite express written consent. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of the Plaintiff
and members of the Class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Chautauqua
County, New York.
The Defendant operates under the name KIA of Jamestown.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS AND GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone (305) 479-2299
Facsimile (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
KADENCE HEALTHCARE: Stroughter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kadence Healthcare,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Deren Stroughter, on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Kadence
Healthcare, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00318799-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 25, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Kadence Healthcare, Inc. -- https://www.kadencehealthcare.com/ --
provides home medical equipment. The Company offers oxygen, CPAP,
nebulizers, and other respiratory products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Thomas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAKE THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. KIMPTON HOTEL &
RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01860-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order:
a. denying Plaintiffs Jake Thomas, Salvatore Galati, and
Jonathan Martin's Motion for Class Certification, filed
Sept. 21, 2021; and
b. denying as moot Defendant Kimpton's Motion to Exclude the
Opinions of Plaintiffs' Damages Expert, filed Nov. 22,
2021.
I. Background
In the operative complaint, the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"),
the Plaintiffs allege that Kimpton, an entity that "owns or
manages" hotels, contracted with Sabre Corp. "to provide a
reservation system." The Plaintiffs further allege they booked
hotel reservations at Kimpton hotels, and, in so doing, provided
"private identifiable information" ("PII"), which PII was
subsequently "accessed by hackers" who "obtained credentials" for
Sabre's "Central Reservations system" and "used those credentials
to access customer data."
According to the Plaintiffs, if Sabre had "employed multiple levels
of authentication," rather than "single factor authorization," the
"hacker would not have been able to access the system." The
Plaintiffs further allege that Sabre was Kimpton's "agent" and thus
that Kimpton is responsible for Sabre's conduct. Based on the above
allegations, the Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a
putative class, assert claims under state law.
In an order filed June 30, 2020, the Court granted in part
Kimpton's motion to dismiss the TAC. In particular, the Court
denied the motion as to three Claims, specifically, the First Claim
for Relief, the Third Claim for Relief, and a portion of the Eighth
Claim for Relief. As to those three Claims, plaintiffs, by the
instant motion, now seek to proceed on behalf of a certified
class.
II. Discussion
As noted, the Plaintiffs seek to proceed with their three remaining
Claims on behalf of a class.
A. First Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract
In the First Claim for Relief, the Plaintiffs allege that the terms
of a "Privacy Statement" located on Kimpton's website were part of
the contract formed when each Plaintiff and putative class member
reserved a hotel room, in that each was "required to accept the
Privacy Statement" during the reservations process. They also
allege that the "Privacy Statement" included a "promise to
safeguard and protect the class members' PII from disclosure to
third parties," and that such promise was breached by the "failure
to safeguard and protect the PII."
Judge Chesney holds that persons who visited Kimpton's website and
read the Privacy Policy, as the Plaintiffs allege each putative
class member did (alleging all putative class members "read" the
Privacy Policy "prior to reserving their hotel rooms")), were told
that, if they clicked on a link, they should look at the location
bar to determine if they were on a webpage maintained by another
company, and that, if so, such other entity would have its own
information collection practices and privacy policies. Moreover,
once the "Book Now" link was clicked, the location bar, as noted,
indicated the webpage was not a Kimpton webpage.
Under such circumstances, Judge Chesney finds a determination of
whether a putative class member held a reasonable belief that
he/she was at all times on a Kimpton.com website presents
individual issues that predominate over common issues. Stated
otherwise, she says, the Plaintiffs have not shown the issue of
whether Sabre acted as Kimpton's ostensible agent can be determined
other than by considering the individual experience of each
putative class member. In particular, the Plaintiffs have not shown
every putative class member necessarily would have believed, at the
time PII was provided, he/she was providing it to Kimpton under
Kimpton's privacy policy, as opposed to Sabre under Sabre's privacy
policy.
Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs seek an order allowing
them to proceed with their breach of contract claim on behalf of a
class, the motion will be denied.
B. Third Claim for Relief: Violation of California Civil Code
Section 1798.81.5
In the Third Claim for Relief, the Plaintiffs assert Kimpton
violated section 1798.81.5 of the California Civil Code. Although
the Third Claim for Relief is titled "Violation of Cal. Civil Code
Section 1798.81.5(c)," the supporting allegations pertain solely to
California Civil Code Section 1798.85.5(b).
Specifically, the Plaintiffs, in the TAC, quote subdivision (b),
which provides that "a business that owns, licenses, or maintains
personal information about a California resident will implement and
maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate
to the nature of the information, to protect the personal
information from unauthorized access, destruction, use,
modification, or disclosure," and allege as the factual basis for
such violation that Kimpton "employed single factor authorization
and/or allowed its contractor to employ single factor authorization
in its reservation system."
Judge Chesney finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that Kimpton
"disclosed personal information about a California resident
pursuant to a contract with a nonaffiliated third party," nor do
they allege that Sabre, acting as Kimpton's agent, "disclosed" such
personal information pursuant to a contract Sabre had with a
nonaffiliated third party. In the absence of any such allegation,
Section 1798.81.5(c) is inapplicable.
Further, to the extent the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under
1798.81.5(b), they again must rely on a theory of ostensible
agency, and, as discussed with regard to the First Claim for
Relief, a determination as to that question requires an
individualized inquiry.
Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs seek an order allowing
them to proceed with a claim under Section 1798.81.5 on behalf of a
class, the motion will be denied.
C. Eighth Cause of Action: Violation of Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act
In the Eighth Claim for Relief, titled "Violation of Texas'
Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act, Texas. Bus. &
Com. Code Section 17.41, et seq. ['DTPA']," the Plaintiffs allege
that Kimpton engaged in "misleading" and "deceptive" acts or
practices. As explained in their motion, the Plaintiffs base this
claim on the same two representations by Kimpton as those on which
they base their breach of contract claim. According to them, such
representations were "misleading and deceptive" in light of Sabre's
"actual protective measures," which measures did not "employ
multi-layer authentication."
Judge Chesney holds that the question of whether a putative class
member relied on any statement describing Kimpton's privacy policy
is, in the first instance, dependent on whether such individual
believed he/she was providing PII to Kimpton or to Sabre, and,
consequently, cannot be resolved on a classwide basis. Accordingly,
to the extent plaintiffs seek an order allowing them to proceed
with a claim under the DTPA on behalf of a class, the motion will
be denied.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons she stated, Judge Chesney denied the Plaintiffs
motion for class certification. She denied as moot Kimpton's motion
to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiffs' damages expert, which
opinions pertain exclusively to calculating damages on a classwide
basis.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p87e869 from Leagle.com.
KISS NAIL PRODUCTS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kiss Nail Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Kiss
Nail Products, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03329 (S.D.N.Y., April 25,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
KISS -- https://www.kissusa.com/ -- is the world's leading supplier
of artificial nails, press on nail manicure kits, false eyelashes,
and professional hair straighteners and tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Alabama Man Sues Firm, Claims Lack of Lemonade in Mix
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Williams at fox5dc.com reports that an Alabama man has filed
a class-action lawsuit against the Kraft Heinz Food Company,
claiming there's a lack of lemonade in the company's "Country Time"
powder drink mix.
DeMarcus Rodgers filed the suit on April 21 in the Northern
District Court of Alabama Southern Division.
According to court documents obtained by FOX Television Stations,
Rodgers bought three canisters of the Country Time lemonade and
pink lemonade drink mix for personal use.
He then noticed that the drink tasted diluted. Furthermore, Rodgers
said he was only able to mix in "six quarts worth of powder drink
mix instead of the usual eight quarts worth of powder drink mix per
cannister."
Rodgers said he then had to purchase more canisters to make up the
difference in the powder drink mix.
"Plaintiff has had to purchase additional 19 oz cannisters of
Country Time lemonade and pink lemonade powder drink mixes to make
up for the lost volume of powder to make lemonade and pink lemonade
to drink," the lawsuit read.
Rodgers and his attorney said Kraft Heinz misrepresented the amount
of powder mix in one canister and accused the company of false
labeling, deceptive trade practices and violating the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
"Plaintiff would not have purchased the 19 oz cannisters of Country
Time lemonade and pink lemonade powder drink mixes had he known
that they did not contain enough powder drink mix to make eight
quarts of drink as stated on the label," the lawsuit read.
Rodgers is seeking three times the damages for himself and other
customers who purchased the product. However, a specific amount
wasn't specified in the lawsuit.
FOX Television Stations has reached out to Kraft Heinz for
comment.
This story was reported from Los Angeles. [GN]
LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED: Evers Labor Suit Goes to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DUSTIN EVERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED; LZB RETAIL,
INC.; LA-ZBOY FURNITURE GALLERIES; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00007717-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on April 25, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00578-L-MDD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all regular and minimum wages,
failure to pay all overtime wages, meal period violations, rest
period violations, untimely payment of wages, wage statement
violations, failure to pay all wages upon separation, failure to
reimburse business expenses, paid sick leave violations,
recordkeeping violations, and failure to produce records.
La-Z-Boy Incorporated is an American furniture manufacturer based
in Monroe, Michigan.
LZB Retail, Inc. is a retail company in Michigan.
La-ZBoy Furniture Galleries is a furniture company in Michigan.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: mkane@bakerlaw.com
abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
- and –
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Transamerica Pyramid
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
Telephone: (415) 659-2600
Facsimile: (415) 659-2601
E-mail: sjkim@bakerlaw.com
LAWRENCE NURSING: Gilhooly Sues Over Residents' Death From COVID-19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER GILHOOLY, as Proposed Administratrix of the Estate of
FRANCES GILHOOLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAWRENCE NURSING CARE CENTER,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 708702/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty.,
April 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of New York's Public Health Law, wrongful death, and
negligence.
The case arises from the Defendant's gross negligence and reckless
misconduct in failing to create, maintain and implement a system
for preventing, identifying, reporting, investigating, and
controlling infections and communicable diseases for all residents,
staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals within its
nursing home facility in New York. The Defendant's failure to
adequately care for and protect its elderly and vulnerable
residents caused the death of the Decedent, Frances Gilhooly, and
at least 15 other residents from COVID-19 infections.
Lawrence Nursing Care Center, Inc. is a nursing home facility, with
its principal place of business at 350 Beach 54th Street, Arverne,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael E. Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & DUFFY, PLLC
1370 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Telephone: (516) 394-4200
Facsimile: (516) 394-4229
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers or acquirers of Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. f/k/a Peridot
Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: LICY; LICY.WS) publicly traded securities
between February 16, 2021 and March 23, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until June 21, 2022 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in Barnish v. Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. f/k/a Peridot
Acquisition Corp., No. 22-cv-02222 (E.D.N.Y.). Commenced on April
19, 2022, the Li-Cycle class action lawsuit charges Li-Cycle 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 Li-Cycle class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-li-cycle-holdings-corp-f-k-a-peridot-acquisition.html.
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 Li-Cycle class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than June 21, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Li-Cycle is the leading lithium-ion battery
recycler in North America. On August 10, 2021, Li-Cycle merged with
Peridot Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company
("SPAC") also called a blank check company. Prior to the merger,
Peridot traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbols PDAC, PDAC.U,
and PDAC WS.
The Li-Cycle class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) Li-Cycle's largest customer, Traxys
North America LLC, is not actually a customer, but merely a broker
providing working capital financial to Li-Cycle while Traxys tries
to sell Li-Cycle's product to end customers; (ii) Li-Cycle engaged
in highly questionable related party transactions; (iii) Li-Cycle's
mark-to-model accounting is vulnerable to abuse and gave a false
impression of growth; (iv) a significant portion of Li-Cycle's
reported revenues were derived from simply marking up receivables
on products that had not been sold; (v) Li-Cycle's gross margins
have likely been negative since inception; (vi) Li-Cycle will
require an additional $1 billion of funding to support its planned
growth (which is a figure greater than Li-Cycle raised via the
merger); and (vii) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On March 24, 2022, Blue Orca Capital released a report on Li-Cycle
describing Li-Cycle as "a near fatal combination of stock
promotion, laughable governance, a broken business hemorrhaging
cash, and highly questionable Enron-like accounting." Among other
things, Blue Orca alleged that Li-Cycle's revenues are based on "an
Enron-like mark-to-model accounting gimmick" and that "Li-Cycle
diverted $529,902 in investor capital to the family . . . of its
founders through a series of highly questionable related party
payments." Blue Orca also alleged that Li-Cycle's "cash burn is so
severe and far above previous guidance" which "will require
[Li-Cycle] to raise at least $1 billion . . . in large part by
massively diluting current shareholders." On this news, Li-Cycle's
stock price fell by more than 5%, 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 Li-Cycle
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Li-Cycle 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 Li-Cycle class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Li-Cycle class action lawsuit. An investor's ability
to share in any potential future recovery of the Li-Cycle 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.
[GN]
LILIUM NV: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
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
publicly traded 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
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.com
for more information. [GN]
LLOYD'S LONDON: Must Show Cause Why ChaChaLounge Remand Be Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHACHALOUNGE LLC D/B/A CHA CHA LOUNGE & BIMBO'S
CANTINA, and JOWW LLC D/B/A/PERCY'S & CO., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERTAIN
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO.
RTB-000493-01, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING
TO POLICY NO. RTB 000494-01, and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S,
LONDON, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-1578-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, ordered the Defendants to show
cause why the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand should not be granted.
I. Introduction
The matter comes before the Court on a Motion for Remand, filed by
Plaintiffs ChaChaLounge and JOWW LLC. The Plaintiffs filed the
putative class action in King County Superior Court on March 23,
2021. The Defendants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, filed
the Notice of Removal on Nov. 22, 2021, asserting diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), and the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), codified in part relevant to this
motion at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).
The Plaintiffs claim that jurisdiction exists under neither, and
that remand is appropriate based on several independent grounds:
(1) removal was untimely; (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction under
CAFA, because Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the class
claims meet the $5 million threshold amount in controversy; and (3)
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1332(a),
because the Defendants have failed to demonstrate (a) that the
parties are completely diverse; or (b) that the Plaintiffs' claims
meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.
II. Background
The Plaintiffs are bar and restaurant operators in Seattle,
asserting claims on behalf of themselves and purported class
members, other similarly situated Lloyd's policyholders. They claim
damages stemming from the Defendants' denial of business
interruption claims related to COVID-19 closures. The Defendants
are "Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London," including those
subscribing to policies held by Plaintiffs.
Relevant to the issues presented by this motion, "Lloyd's itself is
not an insurance company and does not underwrite risk. Rather,
Lloyd's serves as a marketplace where investors, referred to as
'Names,' buy and sell insurance risk. The Names are severally, but
not jointly, liable to the insured for their proportion of the
underwritten risk."
The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in King County
Superior Court on March 23, 2021, and an amended complaint on Aug.
4, 2021. The Defendants filed an answer on June 18, 2021. On Aug.
6, 2021, the Plaintiffs served the Defendants with discovery
requests, seeking information about the Defendants' policyholders
in Washington who may have made business interruption claims. The
Defendants responded with "blanket objections," claiming they had
not been properly served.
On May 28, 2021 (after the Plaintiffs had filed their complaint in
state court, but before the Defendants sought removal) the Court
issued Nguyen v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 541 F.Supp.3d 1200
(W.D. Wash. 2021), appeal dismissed sub nom. Vancouver Clinic Inc.,
PS v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 21-35499, 2021 WL 6201784 (9th
Cir. Dec. 1, 2021) dismissing claims substantially similar to the
Plaintiffs' claims in the case.
On Sept. 22, 2021, the Defendants issued requests for admission
("RFAs") to the Plaintiffs in the King County action. One such
request was that the Plaintiffs admit that "the document attached
as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Loss Notice each
Plaintiff submitted in March 2020." The "Exhibit 1" to which the
RFA refers is the "Property Loss Notice" each Plaintiff submitted
to the Defendants in March 2020, indicating a claimed loss of
$10,000. On Oct. 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs provided the requested
admission that the Notices were "true and correct" copies. The
Defendants filed their Notice of Removal on Nov. 22, 2021.
III. Discussion
A. Whether Defendants' Notice of Removal Was Timely
The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' Notice of Removal was not
timely under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446, which governs the mechanics
and requirements of removal. They do not explicitly deny that the
initial pleading in the case, which made no mention of the amount
of the Plaintiffs' losses, was not "removable on its face," and
therefore appear to concede that the first 30-day period was never
triggered. Instead, the dispute centers on whether the second
30-day window was triggered, and if so at what time. The Plaintiffs
argue that the Defendants were in "receipt" of the "other paper" --
that is, the Notice of Property Loss documents -- as early as March
2020, when Plaintiffs first submitted them.
Judge Rothstein holds that the Defendants' removal was timely. She
finds that "other paper" does not embrace "any document received
prior to receipt of the initial pleading." If, as the Plaintiffs
claim, the Notices of Property Loss were originally received by
Defendants in March 2020, they cannot be considered "other paper"
triggering removability of a March 2021 complaint. Nor does
Defendants' subjective knowledge of the amount claimed in those
Notices trigger their obligation to remove within 30 days. It is
settled law that "a defendant is under no duty to investigate facts
beyond the four corners of the complaint to determine whether the
case might be removable."
C. Whether Court Has CAFA Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)
The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have failed to demonstrate
that the claims here meet the aggregate $5 million
amount-in-controversy threshold for jurisdiction under CAFA. As
referenced, "the defendant seeking removal bears the burden to show
by a preponderance of the evidence that the aggregate amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million."
In response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand, the Defendants
have not provided evidence supporting their claim that the
Plaintiffs have put more than $5 million in controversy. Instead,
the Defendants have merely multiplied hypothetical damages of
$110,000 per class member (an amount apparently extrapolated from
the named Plaintiffs' Notice of Property Loss) by 100 (a presumed
number of class members) for a total estimate of $11 million in
controversy.
Judge Rothstein holds that in doing so, the Defendants speculated
as to the amount of the named Plaintiffs' damages, and assumed
without reason that the other putative class members' claimed
damages would be exactly the same, without providing the Court any
evidence in support thereof. This guesswork would be insufficient
under the most liberal interpretation of the Defendants' burden, as
"a defendant cannot establish removal jurisdiction by mere
speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions."
While the Defendants have provided the Court with inadequate
justification for removal under Section 1332(d), Judge Rothstein is
mindful that under CAFA and Roth, a defendant may be permitted to
make successive attempts at removal if at some point in the future
it becomes apparent that the jurisdictional requirements are in
fact met. To avoid this specter of inefficiency, and to ensure that
the parties have had adequate opportunity to provide whatever
evidence they believe support their jurisdictional claims, she
Orders the Defendants to Show Cause why te matter should not be
remanded for failure of the Defendants to carry their burden of
demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million. The Plaintiffs will have the
opportunity to respond.
D. Whether Court Has Diversity Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a)
Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have also failed
to demonstrate that the case meets the requirements for traditional
diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332(a).
In summary, Judge Rothstein holds that the Defendants have failed
to meet their burden of demonstrating that the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction based on diversity. In their response to the
Order to Show Cause, the Defendants will also provide the Court
with any information and evidence in their possession necessary to
support their claim to the Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a).
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rothstein ordered the Defendants
to show cause why the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand should not be
granted. In its submission, the "Defendants need not make the
Plaintiff's case for it or prove the amount in controversy beyond a
legal certainty," and the Court does not intend to "perform a
detailed mathematical calculation of the amount in controversy
before determining whether the defendant has satisfied its burden."
Nonetheless, the jurisdictional "requirements are to be tested by
consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is at stake
in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the
Defendant's theory of damages exposure."
In addition, the Defendants will include any evidentiary support
for their assertion that that there is complete diversity of the
parties under Section 1332(a) and the rule, articulated in E.R.
Squibb and related cases, "which requires a court to consider the
citizenship as to each Name for the purposes of diversity
analysis."
The Defendants will file this response to the Order to Show Cause
no later than May 4, 2022; the Plaintiffs may file a response
thereto no later than May 13, 2022. Neither side's submission will
exceed ten pages of briefing, though the parties may submit within
reason whatever written evidentiary material they consider
necessary and appropriate.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/24ztp8zv from Leagle.com.
MARCUS POLLARD: Scheduling Order Amended in Fitzgerald Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA FITZGERALD, an
individual, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
MARCUS POLLARD; Lieutenant C. MOORE; Sargeant H. CRUZ; Officer
JACKSON; Officer LITTLE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
granting parties' joint motion for an extension of time to complete
class discovery and to file the motion for class certification and
amending the scheduling order as follows:
1. The deadline for completion of class discovery is May 18,
2022.
2. Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by July
1, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kcwR4l at no extra charge.[CC]
MAZDA MOTOR: Bey Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mazda Motor of
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tamerlane T. Bey, II,
as a Class Representative, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. doing business
as: Mazda North America Operations, Denso Corporation, Denso
International America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03328-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
April 22, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I.
Mazda North American Operations -- http://www.mazdausa.com/--
which includes Mazda Motor of America, Inc., is Mazda Motor
Corporation's North American arm, and constitutes the largest
component of that company outside Japan.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MCLEOD HEALTHCARE: Conditional Certification Sought in Wilkes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maya Wilkes, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. McLeod Healthcare
Network, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00061-JD (D.S.C.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order:
1. granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") claims in this action as a
collective action under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. section 216(b); and
2. granting permission to send notice of this action by U.S.
Mail and email in the proposed notice forms and a consent
form to the alleged collective group defined as:
"All hourly employees who worked for McLeod Regional
Medical Center of the Pee Dee, Inc., McLeod Loris
Seacoast Hospital, McLeod Health Clarendon, McLeod Health
Cheraw, McLeod Medical Center–Dillon, McLeod Occupational
Health, LLC, and McLeod Physician Associates II, in a
patient-facing position at any time within three years
prior to [date Court grants Order], and who were subject
to the automatic meal break pay deduction."
The term "patient-facing" has been defined as anyone
working in one of the job titles. If any putative
collective action member was employed in both a "patient-
facing" and "non-patient facing" position at any point in
time during the Collective Action Period, his/her name
will be included on the notice list, but only those weeks
worked in a patient-facing role will be considered at
issue. In the event there is any question as to whether an
employee is employed in a "patient-facing" or "non-patient
facing" position, Defendant's counsel will confer with
Plaintiff's counsel first before excluding the employee
from the notice list.
On February 21, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff's
FLSA Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of
Action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA"). On
March 21, 20222, Plaintiff filed her Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendant's pending motion to dismiss the SCPWA claim. The
Defendant's motion to partially dismiss is presently pending before
the Court.
The parties have met and conferred, and have agreed that, in order
to preserve resources and in the interests of judicial economy, in
lieu of Plaintiff filing a contested Motion to Proceed as a
Collective Action and to Facilitate section 216(b) Notice, the
Parties will stipulate, as set forth in greater detail below, to
resolve conditional certification of the FLSA collective action
claims for purposes of issuance of notice only.
Founded in 1906, McLeod Health is a locally owned and managed, not
for profit organization.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 13, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38yqnu1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Scott Falls, Esq.
Ashley L. Falls, Esq.
FALLS LEGAL, LLC
245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
Charleston, SC 29492
Telephone: (843) 737-6040
Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com
ashley@falls-legal.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin 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
The Defendant is represented by:
T. Chase Samples, Esq.
N. Okeke, Esq
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
15 South Main Street, Suite 700
Greenville, SC 29601
Telephone: (864) 232-2700
Facsimile: (864) 235-1381
E-mail: chase.samples@jacksonlewis.com
cashida.okeke@jacksonlewis.com
MDL 2873: Bid to Transfer to Johnson v. 3M to D.S.C. Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In case product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873,
Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denied the move by defendant Daikin
America, Inc. to transfer the case captioned Johnson v. 3M Company,
et al., Case No. 4:20−00008, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873.
Plaintiff Jarrod Johnson seeks to represent a class of all
customers of the Rome Water and Sewer Division and the Floyd County
Water Department. He alleges that the water supply for the City of
Rome and Floyd County has been polluted by various defendants,
primarily by the Dalton, Georgia carpet industry and their chemical
suppliers who use polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, which includes
PFOA and PFOS) in their manufacturing processes. These defendants
allegedly discharge their industrial wastewater to conventional
wastewater treatment plants in Dalton and dispose of other waste
products in area landfills. PFAS from these waste products
allegedly flows into the Conasauga River and downstream waters,
including the City of Rome's drinking water intake on the
Oostanaula River. On its face, the Johnson complaint does not
involve allegations pertaining to the manufacture, use, or disposal
of aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). Johnson opposed the motion to
transfer the case.
In support of its motion to transfer, Daikin argues that recent
deposition testimony by the Floyd County fire chief relating to the
use of AFFF by the fire department demonstrates that AFFF is a
potential source of the PFAS contamination for which plaintiff in
Johnson seeks recompense. Daikin further argues that its recently
amended answer, which asserts a crossclaim for apportionment under
Georgia law and is based on the information obtained from the fire
chief's deposition, explicitly places AFFF use at issue in Johnson.
The panel held that a transfer could disrupt the progress of
Johnson. Fact discovery in that case has been ongoing since
mid-2020 and is due to close on April 29, 2022. The presiding judge
has been coordinating with a Georgia state court action brought by
the City of Rome asserting essentially the same claims against the
same defendants. Transferring Johnson to the MDL at this stage
could interfere with this coordination, it said. Any discovery or
other overlap with the MDL can be minimized through coordination
between the parties and the involved courts, thus transfer of
Johnson will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/38hC9bX
MDL 3025: 11 Cases Consolidated in P&G Aerosol Liability Row
-------------------------------------------------------------
In "In re: Procter & Gamble Aerosol Products Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation," MDL No. 3025, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
transfers three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, two from the Southern District of Florida and one
each from the Central District of California, Eastern District of
California, Southern District of California, Eastern District of
New York, Southern District of New York and the District of Oregon,
all to the Southern District of Ohio and assigning them to Judge
Michael H. Watson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
These putative class actions present common factual questions
arising from the alleged contamination of P&G aerosol body spray
products with benzene, a known human carcinogen that has been
linked to leukemia and other cancers. The products at issue in this
litigation are P&G aerosol antiperspirant and deodorant products
mainly, Secret and Old Spice branded products, that were
voluntarily recalled in November 2021. Additionally, certain P&G
aerosol dry shampoo and aerosol dry conditioner products recalled
in December 2021 are it issue in four potential tag-along actions.
The common factual questions include whether the alleged P&G body
spray products contained benzene and, if so, at what concentration;
whether the benzene levels allegedly detected in the products posed
a safety risk to consumers or made the products unfit for sale;
whether P&G knew or should have known that the products contained
benzene; and whether P&G was negligent in labeling, marketing,
manufacturing, and selling the allegedly contaminated products and
the contract manufacturer's alleged role in the contamination.
Considering the common factual questions involving these different
categories of P&G body spray products, the panel has determined
that the centralized proceedings should include the potential
tag-along actions involving P&G aerosol shampoo and conditioner
products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. The panel concluded that the
Southern District of Ohio is the appropriate transferee district
for this litigation. Defendant P&G has its headquarters in this
district, and represents that the contract manufacturer involved in
making the recalled products is located in Indiana and Illinois.
Thus, common witnesses and other evidence likely will be located in
or near this district. Eight actions, including potential tag-along
actions, are pending there.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/36ITVEv
MEDSCAN LABORATORY: Henke Files Suit in D. North Dakota
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medscan Laboratory,
Inc. The case is styled as Bradley Henke, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medscan Laboratory, Inc.
doing business as: Adaptive Health Integrations, Case No.
1:22-cv-00069-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., April 25, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Medscan Laboratory Inc. doing business as Adaptive Health
Integrations -- http://www.adaptivehealthintegrations.com/--
provides software services, billing, and revenue services to
laboratories, physicians’ offices, and related healthcare
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Michael Miller, Esq.
SOLBERG STEWART MILLER
PO Box 1897
Fargo, ND 58107-1897
Phone: (701) 237-3166
Email: tmiller@solberglaw.com
MICHIGAN: Ryan Class Status Bid Tossed without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN MICHAEL RYAN, v. NOAH
NAGY, Case No. 2:20-cv-11528-LJM-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Patricia T. Morris entered an order denying without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and granting appointment
of an attorney.
The appointment of an attorney should help resolve the scope of
discovery issues raised in the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) Defendant's motion for protective order, that motion will be
denied without prejudice to Defendant's ability to raise the issues
later should the appointment of an attorney not resolve the issues
raised. Until an attorney is appointed, Defendant's are relieved
from responding to any of the discovery requests referenced in
their motion, the Hon. Judge Morris says.
The Plaintiff is a prisoner of the MDOC at the G. Robert Cotton
Correctional Facility (JCF) who alleges that Defendants instituted
a housing policy that increased his risk of contracting COVID-19
and other contagious diseases.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vhuFi8 at no extra charge.[CC]
MINDGEEK SARL: Faces $500 Million Suit Over Site's Illegal Content
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezra Black at mtlblog.com reports that like a findom sub, Pornhub
might soon be strapped for cash. MindGeek, its Montreal-based
parent company, has been targeted with a $500 million class-action
lawsuit over claims it failed to prevent unlawful content from
being posted to the web.
The suit was filed by Toronto-based personal injury law firm
Diamond and Diamond on behalf of representative plaintiff Christine
Wing, an Ontario resident who is alleging three videos of her were
non-consensually featured on the porn site in May 2020.
"What does one have when you've lost your privacy in the worst
way?" stated Wing in a news release. "This is a violation of the
most egregious kind."
The class action seeks $500 million
The lawsuit is seeking up to $500 million, "excluding additional
punitive or aggravated damages," states the release.
Darryl Singer, head of commercial and civil litigation at Diamond
and Diamond, told MTL Blog that dozens of other citizens have also
joined the class action.
Wing may be one of thousands of Canadians to have been exploited in
this way, he said, and others with similar stories are being
invited to come forward.
"You want to watch pornography that's your business, go right
ahead," said Singer. "All we're saying is you have to protect
people. You can't have minors. You can't have people who didn't
consent to have their pornography there. It's that simple."
Pornhub has been accused of unruly practices in the past
This is not the first time Pornhub has come under fire for
allegedly posting illegal content.
As noted in the release, a $600-million class-action lawsuit was
filed against MindGeek last year on behalf of a plaintiff known as
Jane Doe, alleging the site profited from videos depicting child
sexual exploitation and non-consensual sexual content.
"Doe claimed her sexual abuse as a child was posted to the site and
that she was only alerted when she received a social media message
from a high school friend," the release says.
New safeguards were 'too little, too late'
In December 2020, Pornhub introduced new safeguards and policies so
that unverified pornography could be yanked off the site but Singer
said: "it was too little, too late."
"There are thousands and thousands of people that have been
victimized and violated as a result," Singer added.
"They definitely had a system in place," he continued. "Our
position is they weren't using the system. In other words, they
paid lip service to it . . . They had the security system, but
they left the door unlocked and didn't set the alarm."
MTL Blog has reached out to Pornhub and MindGeek for a comment on
these allegations. This article will be updated when we hear back.
[GN]
MISSION LANE: Abdelaziz Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
AZIZ ABDELAZIZ; and STEVE MUCCIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MISSION LANE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-005828 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April
22, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
MISSION LANE LLC is a consumer finance company dedicated to help
costumers in accessing fair and clear credit. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Burnett Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT AND RHONDA BURNETT, RYAN HENDRICKSON, JEROD
BREIT, SCOTT TRUPIANO, AND JEREMY KEEL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., HOMESERVICES OF
AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, RE/MAX
LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-00332-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit alleging anticompetitive trade
practices within the residential real estate market. They allege
that Defendant National Association of Realtors ("NAR"), created
and implemented anticompetitive rules which require home sellers to
pay commission to the broker representing the home buyer. The
Plaintiffs also allege that Corporate Defendants Home Services of
America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings
Corp., and RE/MAX, LLC, enforce those rules through anticompetitive
practices. The Plaintiffs represent putative classes of home
sellers who listed their homes for sale on one of several regional
real estate listing marketplaces subject to NAR's and the Corporate
Defendants' anticompetitive rules and practices.
A vast majority of residential real estate sales and purchases in
the United States are facilitated through a Multiple Listing
Service ("MLS"). An MLS is a centralized database of properties
which allows real estate brokers and agents to identify homes for
sale within a defined geographic region.
NAR is a national trade association of real estate brokers and
agents. NAR members consist of over 1,200 local realtor
associations or boards and fifty-four state and territorial realtor
associations. It is governed by a Board of Directors. The local
realtor associations own and operate various MLSs, including the
Heartland MLS, Columbia Board of Realtors ("CBOR"), Mid America
Regional Information System ("MARIS"), and the Southern Missouri
Regional MLS (collectively, the "Subject MLSs"). The Plaintiffs
represent classes of home sellers who listed their property on one
of the four Subject MLSs.
NAR promulgates mandatory rules and procedures for the operation of
MLSs in its Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy. NAR also requires
its members and MLSs to follow and enforce NAR's Code of Ethics.
The Plaintiffs allege that certain rules in both the NAR Handbook
and Code of Ethics (the "Challenged Rules") require sellers to make
a blanket unilateral offer of compensation to any broker
representing potential buyers as a condition of listing their home
on a Subject MLS. They allege the enforcement of the Challenged
Rules results in price-fixing which artificially inflates
residential real estate broker commissions paid by home sellers
because, without these mandatory rules, sellers would not
compensate the broker representing their adversary (the buyer) in
the transaction.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Challenge Rule "strengthens the
Adversary Commission Rule and serves to inflate commissions by
eliminating opportunities for consumers to be able to negotiate the
existence or amount of the buyer broker commission." They also
claim that, during most of the class period, the NAR Code of Ethics
encouraged buyer brokers to represent to their clients that their
services were free. The Plaintiffs also allege the buyer broker
commission offers on the Subject MLSs are hidden from public view.
They argue these practices help enforce the Challenged Rules and
prevent a buyer and seller from negotiating commission rates.
The Subject MLSs adopt the Challenged Rules by requiring each MLS
"Participant" to be a "REALTOR(R)." NAR also requires the Subject
MLSs to adopt NAR policies, including the Challenged Rules, and
failure to do so "will lead to the denial of insurance coverage
under NAR's Errors and Omissions Insurance policy." Further, it may
discipline brokers or local realtor associations who do not comply
with the Challenge Rules, including "substantial fines, suspension,
and termination of MLS rights and privileges."
The Plaintiffs allege that the Corporate Defendants have conspired
with NAR to ratify and enforce the Challenged Rules. The Corporate
Defendants are national real estate broker franchisors that operate
brokerage subsidiaries, franchisees, or affiliates within the
geographic regions covered by the Subject MLSs. The Corporate
Defendants actively participate in NAR, with some of their
high-level employees occupying influential positions.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Corporate Defendants require each
of their franchisees, subsidiaries, brokers, and agents to abide by
the Challenged Rules. They also allege the Corporate Defendants
provide sales scripts to their brokers and agents with canned
responses to prevent sellers from deviating from the standard offer
of buyer broker compensation. The Plaintiffs contend the adoption
and enforcement of the Challenged Rules has resulted in class
members paying buyer broker commissions, and thus total
commissions, that have been inflated to an anticompetitive level in
the areas in which the Subject MLSs operate.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants have engaged in an illegal
conspiracy, or unfair practices, to harm the class members, and
assert the following causes of action: Count I: Violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;7 Count II:
Violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Mo.
Rev. Stat. Section 407.020; and Count III: Violation of Missouri
Antitrust Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 416.031.
The Plaintiffs now move for class certification under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23. They seek certification of the following
classes:
(1) the "Subject MLS Class," asserting Count I, defined as:
All persons in the United States who, from April 29, 2015 through
the present, used a listing broker affiliated with a Corporate
Defendant in the sale of a home listed on a Subject MLS, and who
paid a commission to the buyer's broker in connection with the sale
of the home;
(2) the "Missouri Antitrust Law-Subject MLS Class," asserting
Count III, defined as: All persons who, from April 29, 2015 through
the present, used a listing broker affiliated with a Corporate
Defendant in the sale of a home in Missouri listed on a Subject
MLS, and who paid a commission to the buyer's broker in connection
with the sale of the home; and
(3) the "MMPA Class," asserting Count II, defined as: All
persons who, from April 29, 2014 through the present, used a
listing broker affiliated with a Corporate Defendant in the sale of
a residential home in Missouri listed on a Subject MLS, and who
paid a commission to the buyer's broker in connection with the sale
of the home.
The Defendants oppose the motion.
II. Discussion
The Plaintiffs seek class certification under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Judge Bough rigorously analyzes
the Motion for Class Certification in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 23. Consistent with the parties' briefing, he
addresses the Rule 23(a) requirements as they pertain to the three
proposed classes together, noting any arguments specific to one
proposed class. He then addresses the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements,
which constitute the bulk of the parties' dispute.
A. Requirements Under Rule 23(a)
Under Rule 23(a), a proposed class must satisfy four elements: (1)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (numerosity); (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses of
the representative party are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class (typicality); and (4) the representative party will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the absent class
members (adequacy).
Judge Bough holds that (i) the Plaintiffs estimate each proposed
class includes "hundreds of thousands of class members
geographically dispersed throughout the state of Missouri and
portions of Kansas and Illinois," thus satisfying the numerosity
requirement; (ii) whether the Defendants conspired to enforce the
Challenged Rules to artificially inflate seller broker commission
rates creates common questions of fact; and whether that conspiracy
amounts to an antitrust violation under federal and Missouri law,
or whether it amounts to unfair practices under the MMPA, creates
common question of law; (iii) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
shown that the legal theories and remedial relief that apply to
both the Plaintiffs' claims and the class members who sold a home
using the CBOR MLS and Southern Missouri Regional MLS; and (iv) the
Plaintiffs offer facts which demonstrate that, if their allegations
are true, potential class members do not benefit from the
Defendants' alleged price-fixing conspiracy.
B. Requirements Under Rule 23(b)(3)
If Rule 23(a) is satisfied, the party seeking certification "must
also satisfy through evidentiary proof at least one of the
provisions of Rule 23(b)." The Plaintiffs move for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires a finding that:
The questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
Judge Bough finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that
common issues, capable of being answered with common evidence,
predominate any individualized issues regarding an antitrust
impact; and (ii) a class action is the superior method for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
C. Notice Requirements Under Rule 23(c)(2)(B)
The Plaintiffs' counsel states that they "have proactively
contacted a class administration company for the purpose of sending
notice to the class members." The Plaintiffs also attached a robust
notice plan aimed at reaching an overwhelming majority of class
members. The Defendants do not argue whether the notice is
sufficient.
In view of the Court's mandate to direct to class members the best
practicable notice, Judge Bough is unable to determine whether the
Plaintiffs' proposed notice complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) at this
time. Accordingly, he orders the parties to meet and confer to
determine agreed upon proper notice procedures.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Bough granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. He certified the following classes in accordance
with Rule 23:
(1) the "Subject MLS Class," asserting Count I, defined as:
All persons who, from April 29, 2015 through the present, used a
listing broker affiliated with Home Services of America, Inc.,
Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., RE/MAX, LLC,
HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH Affiliates, LLC, in the sale of a home
listed on the Heartland MLS, Columbia Board of Realtors, Mid
America Regional Information System, or the Southern Missouri
Regional MLS, and who paid a commission to the buyer's broker in
connection with the sale of the home;
(2) the "Missouri Antitrust Law-Subject MLS Class," asserting
Count III, defined as: All persons who, from April 29, 2015 through
the present, used a listing broker affiliated with Home Services of
America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings
Corp., RE/MAX, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH Affiliates, LLC, in
the sale of a home in Missouri listed on the Heartland MLS,
Columbia Board of Realtors, Mid America Regional Information
System, or the Southern Missouri Regional MLS, and who paid a
commission to the buyer's broker in connection with the sale of the
home; and
(3) the "MMPA Class," asserting Count II, defined as: All
persons who, from April 29, 2014 through the present, used a
listing broker affiliated with Home Services of America, Inc.,
Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., RE/MAX, LLC,
HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH Affiliates, LLC, in the sale of a
residential home in Missouri listed on the Heartland MLS, Columbia
Board of Realtors, Mid America Regional Information System, or the
Southern Missouri Regional MLS, and who paid a commission to the
buyer's broker in connection with the sale of the home.
Additionally, Judge Bough ordered that:
(1) the Plaintiffs will have up to an including 14 calendar
days from the filing of the Order to file a Third Amended Complaint
for the purpose of adding as named plaintiffs individuals who sold
their home using the CBOR and Southern Missouri Regional MLS; and
(2) the parties will meet and confer to agree on the proposed
notice to potential class members pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2)(B). The proposed notice will be filed within 14
calendar days of the filing of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p868297 from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL CLAIMS: Filing of Class Status Bid Continued to May 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patricia BOBBS v. NATIONAL
CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01323-TWR-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Bernard G. Skomal entered an order that the deadline
for filing a motion for class certification is continued from April
5, 2022 until May 5, 2022.
No other deadlines in the Scheduling Order are modified. Any future
requests to amend the Scheduling Order need to comply with the
Federal Rules and the undersigned's chambers' rules.
Accordingly, the parties have failed to demonstrate good cause for
an extension of the deadline to file the motion for class
certification. However, in the interest of justice and recognizing
that this is the parties' first request, the Court continues this
deadline by 30 days, the Court says.
National Claims are the public insurance adjusting firm in the
State of Florida.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Keh9Ah at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONAL GRID: Ct. Amends Class Certification Scheduling Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Nightingale v.
National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton
entered an order amending class certification scheduling deadlines
as follows:
-- Hearing on class certification Oct. 20, 2022
(if necessary):
-- Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 8. 2023
-- Trial: Feb. 13, 2023
National Grid provides utility services. The Company distributes
electricity and gas energy.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39kxK8J at no extra charge.[CC]
NCAA: Court Modifies Case Schedule in House Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as House et al., v. National
Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claudia Wilken entered an order
granting motion to modify case schedule as follows:
Event Current Modified
Date Date
-- Class Certification Motion June 22, 2022 Oct. 21, 2022
and Supporting Expert
Reports:
-- Deadline to Depose Sept. 12, 2022 Jan. 11, 2023
Plaintiffs’ Class Experts:
-- Class Certification Oct. 12, 2022 Feb. 10, 2023
Opposition and Supporting
Expert Reports
-- Deadline to Depose Nov. 25, 2022 March 25, 2023
Defendants' Class
Experts:
-- Class Certification Reply Dec. 14, 2022 April 14, 2023
and Expert Rebuttal
Report:
-- Hearing on Class Jan. 25, 2023 May 24, 2023 at
Certification:
-- Merits Discovery March 27, 2023 July 26, 2023
Cut-Off:
-- Merits Expert Response: June 27, 2023 Oct. 26, 2023
-- Merits Expert Reply: July 24, 2023 Nov. 22, 2023
NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes
from up to 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MpZNSd at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Underpays Motor Vehicle Operators, Moreno Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL MORENO, RONALD BALDUCCI, ANGEL BENITEZ, JOSE AMANDO M.
BRIONES, CARLOS CASTANEDA, DONALD CHAPMAN, GERARD CIRILLO, EUCLIDES
PONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK and the NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03358 (S.D.N.Y., April 25,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated motor vehicle
operators overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked as motor vehicle operators at the New York
City Police Department.
The City of New York is a public agency with a principal office
located at Broadway and Park Row, New York.
New York City Police Department is an administrative division of
the City of New York, with a principal office located at One Police
Plaza, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
slf@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
- and –
Hope Pordy, Esq.
Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 765-2100
E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
esprotzer@spivaklipton.com
NEW YORK: Cardew Seeks Extension to File Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cardew, et al., v. New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et
al., Case No. 6:21-cv-06557-CJS-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting a 60-day extension of the
deadline for the motion for class certification, as Defendants have
yet to provide responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for
Production of Documents and Interrogatories.
The current deadline for the class certification motion is April
29, 2022. The requested extension would move the deadline to June
28, 2022. This is the first request for an extension of the
deadline for a class certification motion, the Plaintiffs' says.
The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision is the department of the New York State government that
maintains the state prisons and parole system.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36TTYxu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hallie Mitnick, Esq.
Megan Welch, Esq.
Andrew Stecker, Esq.
PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NY
114 Prospect Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Telephone: (607) 273-2283
E-mail: hmitnick@plsny.org
mwelch@plsny.org
astecker@plsny.org
- and -
Torie Atkinson, Esq.
Chloe Holzman, Esq.
Disability Rights Advocates
655 Third Ave, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 644-8644
E-mail: tatkinson@dralegal.org
cholzman@dralegal.org
NEXT STOP: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN CRUZ MORALES, GERSON POLANCO, EDUARDO MIXI, ANTONIO BRUNO,
LUCIANO CALIXTO, ISAAC DIAZ, FERNANDO LEYVA, EDGAR LUNA, CORNELIO
RINCON LEON, LEONEL FLORES, EDWIN ALBA, RAUL HERRERA, LUCIANO
LOPEZ, RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ, NICHOLAS FIGUEROA, LUIS CASTILLO, FERNANDO
SANCHEZ, ARISMENDIZ HIDALGO, JORGE MARTINEZ, JOSE GRANDE HERNANDEZ
and ANGEL M. VARGAS MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEXT STOP 2006, INC.,
CHAIM LITTMAN and CAROLINA LITTMAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03311-JGK (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law
including unpaid minimum wages, unlawful wage deductions, illegal
kickbacks, unpaid overtime wages, failure to furnish wage notice,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, discrimination,
retaliation, and failure to provide sick days.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as drivers, helpers,
and/or installers in Fair Lawn, New Jersey.
Next Stop 2006, Inc. is a furniture installation and removal
company based in Fair Lawn, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ria Julien, Esq.
JULIEN & MIRER, PLLC
1 Whitehall Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 231-2235
E-mail: rjulien@julienmirer.com
NGL ENERGY: Amended Class Cert. Sched Order Entered in Underwood
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gary R. Underwood
Successor Trustee for the James L. Price Revocable Living Trust, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. NGL Energy
Partners LP, Case No. 4:21-cv-00135-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Hon.
Judge Claire V. Eagan entered an amended scheduling order for class
certification issues as follows
Event Scheduled Deadlines
-- Documents previously produced May 31, 2022
by parties shall be deemed
authenticated except as to those
objected to:
-- Class Certification Motion filed June 28, 2022
with all supporting evidence,
including expert disclosures:
-- Class Certification Response filed August 29, 2022
with all supporting evidence,
including expert disclosures:
-- Class Certification Reply filed September 26, 2022
with any rebuttal evidence,
including rebuttal expert
disclosures, if any:
-- Class Certification Discovery September 26, 2022
Cutoff:
Parties are encouraged to
complete all merits
discovery by this date as well
-- Class Certification Hearing: October 11, 2022
NGL Energy is a diversified midstream MLP that provides multiple
services to producers and end-users, including transportation,
storage, blending and marketing of crude oil, NGLs, refined
products / renewables, and water solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ERJyuQ at no extra charge.[CC]
NISSAN MOTOR: Urias Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA URIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-005832 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April
22, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC operates as an automotive
company. The Company offers auto loans, lease, and floor plan
financing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
NOOM AUTORENEWAL: Reaches $56 Million Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Who Qualifies: The settlement Class (which includes two Subclasses)
is made up of anyone who purchased an autorenewing Noom Healthy
Weight subscription through the company's website or mobile app
between May 12, 2016, and Oct. 6, 2020, while in the United States
and did not receive a full refund or chargeback on their
subscription payments.
Potential Award: An approximate payment of $167 for Subclass A
Members, $30 for Subclass B Members
Proof of Purchase Required: No
Claim Deadline: 6/24/2022
Weight-loss program Noom has agreed to a $56 million settlement to
resolve class action claims regarding its autorenewal and
cancellation policy.
The Class is made up of anyone who purchased an autorenewing Noom
Healthy Weight subscription through the company's website or mobile
app between May 12, 2016, and Oct. 6, 2020, while in the United
States and did not receive a full refund or chargeback on their
subscription payments. Those who purchased their Noom subscriptions
through the Apple iTunes or Google Play stores are not part of the
Class.
The Class has been divided into two Subclasses.
According to the company's website, Noom helps people lose weight
through "a combination of psychology, technology, and human
coaching."
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Noom of violating
consumer protection law by not clearly disclosing the Noom Healthy
Weight subscription autorenewal offer terms and by not providing a
simple way to cancel the subscription online.
Noom has not admitted any wrongdoing and maintains that its
autorenewal and cancellation practices were at all times lawful but
has agreed to resolve the claims with a settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, Noom will pay $56 million and
provide another $6 million in subscription fee credits.
Payments are expected to be approximately $167 for Subclass A
Members and $30 for those in Subclass B, excluding any subscription
fee credits.
Subclass B Members also will be eligible to choose one free month
of Noom's Healthy Weight product, which will not reduce their cash
award. This free month will be available to the first 100,000
Subclass B Members who file a valid claim form.
Those who have a Healthy Weight subscription when the free month is
redeemed will receive an additional month on their subscription.
Those who are not subscribers when the credit is redeemed will
receive a voucher or promo code for a single month of a
non-automatically renewing subscription.
Class Members may have received a notice about this settlement via
email, Facebook, or Instagram. Those who did not receive a notice
and think they qualify for this settlement should visit the
settlement website or call 1-844-999-2466.
In addition to the monetary relief, Noom also has agreed to alter
certain business practices for two years.
A final fairness hearing in the Noom settlement is scheduled for
July 11, 2022.
The deadline for Class Members to exclude themselves from or object
is June 24, 2022.
The deadline to submit a claim is June 24, 2022.
Who's Eligible
Anyone who purchased an autorenewing Noom Healthy Weight
subscription through the company's website or mobile app between
May 12, 2016, and Oct. 6, 2020, while in the United States and did
not receive a full refund or chargeback on their subscription
payments.
The Class has been divided into two Subclasses.
Subclass A includes Class Members who either never completed their
Noom enrollment but were charged; enrolled but there is proof they
never used Noom post-trial; there is proof they used Noom during
the trial but not after being charged for a subscription; there is
proof they used Noom two times or fewer after the trial; there is
proof they stopped using Noom after day 58 of the subscription;
they received a partial refund of any payments for the Healthy
Weight Subscription; or they were a California resident when they
signed up for the Healthy Weight Subscription.
Any Class Member who does not fit that description belongs to
Subclass B.
Potential Award
$30 to 167.
Payments are expected to be approximately $167 for Subclass A
Members and $30 for those in Subclass B, excluding any subscription
fee credits.
Subclass B Members also will be eligible to choose one free month
of Noom's Healthy Weight product, which will not reduce their cash
award. This free month will be available to the first 100,000
Subclass B Members who file a valid claim form.
Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase is required.
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
06/24/2022
Case Name
Nichols, et al. v. Noom Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-CV-03677-KHP in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Final Hearing
07/11/2022
Settlement Website
NoomClassSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Noom Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
1-844-999-2466
Questions@NoomClassSettlement.com
Class Counsel
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
Defense Counsel
COOLEY LLP [GN]
NORTHWEST EXTERIORS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Exteriors
Inc., et al. The case is styled as George Martinez, on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated and behalf
of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act v. Northwest Exteriors Inc., Does 1-100, Case
No. 34-2022-00318192-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
April 12, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Northwest Exteriors Inc. -- https://northwestexteriors.com/ --
provide energy-efficient window replacements and installation,
doors, exterior siding, patio covers, sunrooms and solar electric
systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
NURTURE INC: Thomas Sues Over Unhealthy Baby, Tot Snacks
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE THOMAS, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, v. NURTURE, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-02501 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2022) is a class action lawsuit
on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated consumers,
and the general public, to enjoin Nurture from deceptively
marketing the Baby/Tot Snacks as healthy, and to recover
compensation for injured class members.
Nurture markets and sells snack products for infants and toddlers,
including the three product lines challenged here:
-- (1) "Happy Baby organic greek yogis,"
-- (2) "Happy Baby organic creamies" (freeze dried snacks for
infants as young as 7 months) (the "Happy Baby Snacks"), and
-- (3) "Happy Tot Pouches," for infants as young as 12 months
(collectively the "Baby/Tot Snacks").
The Directly on the labeling of the Baby/Tot Snacks, Nurture
represents expressly or implicitly that the products are healthy,
meaning beneficial 11 than detrimental to physical health. These
representations, however, are false or at least highly misleading
because the Baby/Tot Snacks contain high amounts of free and added
sugar, which causes metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, type
2 diabetes, and liver disease, and is especially harmful to
infants and toddlers, says the suit.
During the Class Period, Ms. Thomas was a frequent purchaser of
both Nurture's Happy Baby Snacks and Happy Tot Pouches. To the best
of her recollection, her purchases included Happy Baby Yogis and
Happy Tot Pouches, including Super Foods, Love My Veggies, Super
Smart, and Fiber & Protein varieties. Ms. Thomas made her purchases
from local stores including the Walmart in Pittsburg, California.
In making her purchase decisions, she believes she read and relied
on the Challenged Claims identified herein that conveyed that the
Happy Baby/Tot Snacks are healthy, including at least: "We are a
team of Real Parents, Pediatricians & Nutritionists on a mission to
bring health and happiness to our little ones and the planet," "Our
team creates nutritious meals and snacks," "Enlightened Nutrition
Philosophy," "Healthy start" "wholesome veggies," and "Super food,"
"Helps support your tot’s immune system," "Helps support
digestive system," and "Gives your tot important nutrients to help
support a healthy brain."
When purchasing the Baby/Tot Snacks, Ms. Thomas was seeking
products that were healthy for her child. However, Nurture’s
representations that the Baby/Tot Snacks are healthy were false or
at least highly misleading, and had the capacity, tendency, and
likelihood to confuse or confound Plaintiff and other consumers
acting reasonably (including the Class) because, as described in
detail herein, consumption of the free sugars in the Baby/Tot
Snacks is associated with increased risk of disease.
Happy Family is an organic and baby food company in the US. It was
ranked No. 2 in Inc. Magazine's 2011 list of the 500
Fastest-Growing Companies, in the food industry category.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
Caroline Emhardt, Esq.
FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
ONTRAK INC: Stockholder Faces Vega Suit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------
Ontrak, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2022, that its Executive Chairman and
largest stockholder, Terren S. Peizer, is facing a purported
stockholder derivative complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware in December 1, 2021,
entitled "Vega v. Peizer," Case No. 1:21-cv-01701, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, gross
mismanagement and waste of corporate assets.
In these actions, plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by allowing or causing the company to
violate the federal securities laws and seek damages. On March 21,
2022 the Court in the District of Delaware granted plaintiff's
unopposed motion to transfer the case to the United States District
Court for Central District of California in the interest of
judicial efficiency due to the Consolidated Class Action and
Consolidated Derivative Action already pending in that district,
and that same day the case was transferred into the United States
District Court for Central District of California and given the new
Case No. 2:22-cv-01873-CAS-AS. On April 8, 2022, defendants filed
an unopposed motion to stay the case pending a ruling on the Motion
to Dismiss in the consolidated class action.
Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized
healthcare company designed to provide healthcare solutions to
members with behavioral conditions that cause or exacerbate chronic
medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive
heart failure, which result in high medical costs.
PEPSICO INC: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Vidaud Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO VIDAUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEPSICO, INC. and DOES No. 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02713 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid wages and other damages owed by PepsiCo to the Plaintiff and
PepsiCo's similar workers, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but PepsiCo's decision to make their own
workforce bear the economic burden for the hack.
Like many other companies across the United States, PepsiCo's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout PepsiCo's organizations.
As a result, PepsiCo's workers who were not exempt from the
overtime requirements under California law were not paid for all
hours worked and/or were not paid proper overtime premium for all
overtime hours after the onset of the Kronos hack.
Ricardo Vidaud is one such worker for PepsiCo. PepsiCo could have
easily implemented a system to accurately record time and properly
pay hourly and non-exempt employees until issues related to the
hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, PepsiCo did not pay
their non-exempt hourly and salaried employees their full overtime
premium for all overtime hours worked, as required by California
law. PepsiCo pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in their workforce, the lawsauit
says.
PepsiCo made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on
front-line workers -- average Americans -- who rely on the full and
timely paymet of their wages to make 11 meet.
PepsiCo's failure to pay proper wages for all hours worked,
including overtime hours, violates the California Labor Codea and
California law, says the suit.
Vidaud represent a class of similarly situated employees under
California law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This
"California Class" is defined as:
"All current or former non-exempt employees of PepsiCo, Inc.
(including its subsidiaries and alter egos), who worked in
California at any time since the onset of the Kronos ransomware
attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the present."
PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food, snack, and
beverage corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York, in the
hamlet of Purchase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone 310 928 1277
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
PEPSICO INC: King Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Tyrell King, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00360-KGB (E.D. Ark.,
April 22, 2022), is brought to recover these unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed by PepsiCo to him and the
non-overtime-exempt workers like him, who were the ultimate victims
of not just the Kronos hack, but also PepsiCo's decision to make
its front-line workers bear the economic burden for the hack.
Like many other companies across the United States, PepsiCo's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout PepsiCo's organization. As a result, PepsiCo's workers
who were not exempt from the overtime requirements under Arkansas
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. PepsiCo could have easily implemented a
system for recording hours and paying wages to non-exempt employees
until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't.
Instead, PepsiCo used prior pay periods or reduced payroll
estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these
non-exempt hourly and salaried employees. PepsiCo's failure to pay
wages, including proper overtime, for all hours worked violates the
Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is one such PepsiCo worker.
PepsiCo is a food, snack, and beverage corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: 713 999 5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
PERMANENT GENERAL: Connor Wins Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORINE L. CONNOR, and
MYRTLE E. PUGH, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORP., Case No. 9:20-cv-81979-WPD (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order
that:
1. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.
2. The Court hereby certifies a class (the "Class") pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) consisting of the following:
"All citizens residing in the State of Florida, who,
within five years of the filing of this action, were (1)
insured under an auto policy sold or issued by Permanent
General containing the same or similar "Refund of Premium"
provision under the policy's "Cancellation and Non-
Renewal" section as found in Plaintiffs Connor's and
Pugh's policies, and who (2) had their policies cancelled
at the insured's request, and who (3) had paid a premium
that was held by Permanent General and still unearned on
the effective date of cancellation."
3. The Class is subject to decertification or adjustment as
appropriate.
4. Myrtle Pugh and Dorine Connor are hereby certified as
representatives of the Class.
5. Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz LLP, Irby Law LLC, and Methvin,
Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. are hereby
certified as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).
6. On or before April 22, 2022, the parties shall jointly
file for approval by the Court a proposed notice to Class
members; alternatively, if the parties cannot agree on a
proposed notice, Plaintiffs shall file a proposed notice
on or before April 22, 2022, and Defendant shall file any
objections within three (3) days of the filing of
Plaintiffs' proposed notice.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs cite several reasons why a class
action is the most desirable vehicle to adjudicate the claims,
including that the an individual's damages are likely to be small
and insufficient for counsel to represent them individually when
compared to the cost of litigating a breach of contract case
against a large insurance company, and that the class action is
manageable, as the uniform policy provision in question lies at the
heart of this case with damages to be determined by an analysis of
Defendant's data. The Court finds that class certification is
superior to other methods for adjudicating this controversy."
The Plaintiff Finley filed a putative class action against PGAC and
Nation Motor Club on October 27, 2020, which she replaced on
December 11, 2020 with an Amended Class Action Complaint. On
January 25, 2021, Finley filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, adding Dorine Connor and Myrtle Pugh as plaintiffs.
Finley voluntarily dismissed her claims against PGAC and NSD on
March 4, 2021. As Finley was the only Plaintiff with a claim
against NSD, NSD was dismissed from the action.
On July 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Connor and Pugh filed a Third Amended
Compliant, the operative complaint, to add Matthew K. Lancaster to
represent a nationwide class and California subclass. The Third
Amended Complaint alleged four counts: Count I for breach of
contract; Count II for restitution/unjust enrichment of unlawful
penalty (on behalf of the Florida subclass); Count III for
restitution/unjust enrichment of unlawful penalty (on behalf of the
California subclass); and Count IV for unlawful, unfair and
fraudulent business practices (on behalf of the California
subclass). On November 18, 2021, the Court dismissed all claims
brought by Lancaster for
lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a nationwide class
and Florida subclass, encompassing former PGAC policyholders who
they claim were victims of an improper premium refund scheme
perpetrated by PGAC.
PGAC markets, sells, and underwrites non-standard automobile
insurance throughout the United States, including in Florida.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EFtuw8 at no extra charge.[CC]
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 6 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 PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. ("PLAYSTUDIOS") (NASDAQ: MYPS;
MYPSW) f/k/a Acies Acquisition Corp. ("Acies") (NASDAQ: ACAC;
ACACW). The action charges PLAYSTUDIOS with violations of the
federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent
misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations,
and prospects. The lawsuit also includes claims relating to a
merger transaction with Acies and asserts claims on behalf of
investors who held Acies common stock as of May 25, 2021, were
eligible to vote at Acies' June 17, 2021 special meeting, and who
exchanged their shares of Acies stock for PLAYSTUDIOS stock in
connection with the merger. As a result of PLAYSTUDIOS' materially
misleading statements to the public, PLAYSTUDIOS' investors have
suffered significant losses.
CLICK https://bit.ly/3kAaFkM TO SUBMIT YOUR PLAYSTUDIOS LOSSES. YOU
CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR
BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/playstudios-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=playstudios
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JUNE 6, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: JUNE 22, 2021 THROUGH MARCH 1, 2022
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com
THE CLASS INCLUDES: Investors who (1) purchased or acquired
PLAYSTUDIOS securities between June 22, 2021 and March 1, 2022,
including, but not limited to, those who purchased or acquired
PLAYSTUDIOS securities pursuant to the offering of the private
investment in public equity; (2) held Acies common stock as of May
25, 2021, and were eligible to vote at Acies' June 17, 2021 special
meeting who exchanged their Acies stock for PLAYSTUDIOS stock; or
(3) purchased or acquired PLAYSTUDIOS common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Acies' Registration Statement and Proxy Statement
issued in connection with the June 2021 merger.
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.
PLAYSTUDIOS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
On February 1, 2021, Acies, a special purpose acquisition company,
announced that it had reached a merger agreement with "Old
Playstudios," a privately-held gaming company (the "Merger").
PLAYSTUDIOS' flagship game was Kingdom Boss. PLAYSTUDIOS told
investors that "Kingdom Boss, which began development in 2020, will
launch as expected in the second half of 2021."
On June 17, 2021, Acies held a General Meeting where Acies
shareholders were asked to approve
the Merger. The Merger closed on June 21, 2021, and on June 22,
2021, PLAYSTUDIOS stock and warrants began publicly trading on
NASDAQ.
The truth began to be revealed on August 11, 2021, when PLAYSTUDIOS
released its financial results for the second quarter of 2021
wherein PLAYSTUDIOS revealed for the first time that the Kingdom
Boss launch was being delayed until later in the year and that
investors should expect decreased revenues and profits during the
year as a result. These quarterly financial results were finalized
on June 30, 2021, just nine days after the Merger closed. Thus,
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded prior to the merger close
(June 21, 2021) and prior to the merger vote by the Acies
shareholders (June 17, 2021), that Kingdom Boss would not be ready
to launch within just a matter of weeks. Following this news,
PLAYSTUDIOS stock price fell $.66 to close at $5.09 per share on
August 12, 2021, a decline of 13%.
Then, on February 24, 2022, during an earnings call for the fourth
quarter ended December 31, 2021, PLAYSTUDIOS' CEO, much to
investors' surprise, disclosed that Kingdom Boss would not be
launched at all. Following this news, PLAYSTUDIOS stock price fell
$.24 to close at $4.86 per share on February 25, 2022, a decline of
5%. Two days later, on February 26, 2022, PLAYSTUDIOS' CEO
attributed the failure to meet the projections made for revenue and
earnings to the failure to launch Kingdom Boss, and revealed that
Kingdom Boss was not only delayed, but indefinitely "suspended."
WHAT CAN I DO?
Current PLAYSTUDIOS investors and/or former Acies shareholders may,
no later than June 6, 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
PLAYSTUDIOS investors and/or former Acies shareholders who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.
CLICK https://bit.ly/3MN3fqw TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE
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. [GN]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Labella Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lindsey Labella, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00216 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio on April 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01992-MHW-CMV to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James
Gamble.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David J. Singley, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
One Oxford Centre, 28th Floor
301 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-5000
Email: david.singley@dinsmore.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Martinez Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nancy Martinez, Evan Clarke, Lagregory Bonner,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The
Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 6:22-cv-00056 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April
20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01993-MHW-CMV to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James
Gamble.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
R. Jason Richards, Esq.
AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ
17 East Main Street, Ste. 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Fax: (850) 916-7449
Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com
jrichards@awkolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew Soukup, Esq.
Dennis Michael Campbell, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING, LLP
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 662-5066
Fax: (202) 662-6291
Email: asoukup@cov.com
dcampbell@campbellmiami.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Martorana Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Direct
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Hayley Martorana,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-10613 (D.
Mass., April 25, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Default.
The Progressive Corporation -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- is
an American insurance company, the third largest insurance carrier
and the No. 1 commercial auto insurer in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 439-6730
Fax: (617) 951-3954
Email: eryan@baileyglasser.com
PROSOURCEFIT HOLDINGS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed ProSourceFit Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
ProSourceFit Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03330 (S.D.N.Y., April
25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Prosourcefit Holdings, LLC -- https://www.prosourcefit.com/ --
makes high-quality products for strength and resistance training,
performance, muscle recovery, yoga and Pilates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
QUEEN CITY: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Proper Wages, Olson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS OLSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. QUEEN CITY PIZZA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-CRH
(D.N.D., April 25, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys'
fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to
pay Plaintiff sufficient wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the North Dakota Century Code.
The Plaintiff and the other Delivery Drivers at Defendant's
restaurants work "dual jobs." Specifically, they deliver food to
Defendant's customers and receive tips, and they also work inside
the store completing nontipped duties.
The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers a rate at
or close to minimum wage per hour for work performed while in the
store.
The Defendant requires Delivery Drivers to maintain and pay for
operable, safe, and legally compliant automobiles to use in
delivering Defendant's pizza and other food items.
The Defendant requires Delivery Drivers to incur and/or pay
job-related expenses, including but not limited to automobile costs
and depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile maintenance and
parts, insurance, financing, cell phone costs, and other equipment
necessary for Delivery Drivers to complete their job duties.
The Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers purchased gasoline,
vehicle parts and fluids, automobile repair and maintenance
services, automobile insurance, suffered automobile depreciation,
paid for automobile financing, and incurred cell phone and data
charges all for the primary benefit of Defendant.
The Defendant does not track Plaintiff's or other Delivery Drivers'
actual expenses nor does Defendant keep records of all of those
expenses, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant owns and operates Papa John’s franchises in North
Dakota.[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
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Tabai Sues Over Consumer Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINA TABAI, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Case No. CACE-22-005830
(Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022) sues Quest Diagnostics
for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The Defendant has allegedly sent thousands of text message
communications to Florida consumers between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM,
whereby such text message communication(s) violate 559.72(17). The
members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable. The exact number and
identities of the Class members are unknown at this time and can be
ascertained only through discovery. Identification of the Class
members is a matter capable of ministerial determination from
Defendant's phone and text message records, says the suit.
Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A Fortune 500
company, Quest operates in the United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico,
and Brazil. Quest also maintains collaborative agreements with
various hospitals and clinics across the globe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
TelePhone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail : jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC: Cardoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Electric
West, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Roberto Cardoza, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Republic Electric
West, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00318803-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
25, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Republic Electric West, Inc. -- http://republicelectricwest.com/--
specializes in new production and custom homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
YEREMIAN LAW
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-230-8380
RODAN + FIELDS: Settled Lawsuit Over Lash Serum For $38-MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Albert Wagner at vervetimes.com reports that Rodan + Fields Lash
Boost aims to help condition and strengthen lashes. But in three
class-action lawsuits filed in 2018, consumers alleged, among other
things, that the company didn't disclose information about the
potential risks of one of Lash Boost's ingredients, isopropyl
cloprostenate, which may cause adverse effects like ocular
irritation and iris color change. Rodan + Fields denied the
allegations, and now, four years later, the company has reached a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs of the lawsuits.
As part of the agreement, Rodan + Fields has offered to pay $38
million. Consumers who purchased a Rodan + Fields Lash Boost
between October 1, 2016, and March 11, 2022 could be eligible to
receive up to a $175 cash benefit or a credit voucher for no more
than $250 to be used on any Rodan + Fields product if they submit a
claim form by September 7, 2022. They also don't need to provide
proof of purchase.
In a statement from Rodan + Fields, the brand said it was pleased
to reach a resolution and that the settlement was in the "best
interest" of all parties involved. "The health, safety, and
satisfaction of our valued customers remains our top priorit[y],
and we are proud of, and stand by, Lash Boost, a much-loved,
industry-recognized innovation that has been used by millions of
customers for the last five-plus years," the statement reads.
In addition to the alleged lack of information about potential side
effects, the lawsuits claimed that Rodan + Fields incorrectly
marketed Lash Boost, and that the inclusion of isopropyl
cloprostenate - a prostaglandin analog in the same class of
ingredients used in drugs to treat glaucoma - means the product
should be considered a drug, and thus regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).
Prostaglandin analogs were first recognized as promising for lash
growth when longer lashes were reported as a side effect in
patients receiving treatment for glaucoma. The lash-growth
treatment, Latisse, for example, contains a prostaglandin analog
called bimatoprost. But, whereas the bimatoprost in Latisse is
FDA-approved, "isopropyl cloprostenate, the prostaglandin analog
often found in over-the-counter products, is not," according to the
American Academy of Ophthalmology. According to the FDA, a product
that aims to affect the structure or function of the body and has
the potential for side effects is considered a drug, not a
cosmetic, and should be regulated.
Denial of responsibility! Verve Times is an automatic aggregator of
the all world's media. In each content, the hyperlink to the
primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their
rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the
owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials,
please contact us by email - admin@vervetimes.com. The content will
be deleted within 24 hours. [GN]
SAM'S WEST: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated,
v. SAM'S WEST, INC. dba SAM'S CLUB, an Arkansas corporation, Case
No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC (), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying the following class under Rules 23(a) (b)(2)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All current and former non-exempt employees who worked
one or more closing shifts for Defendant in California at
any time from June 23, 2017 until the date class notice is
provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2);"
2. appointing him to represent the class under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a)(4); and
3. appointing Bradley Grombacher LLP to serve as class
counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) & (4).
This putative wage and hour class action seeks recovery of unpaid
wages for current and former employees of Sam's West arising out of
Sam's uniform practice of confining its hourly "associates" who
work closing shifts to its store facilities after clocking out
until they can be released by a manager or other key-carrying
supervisor.
At the core of Plaintiff's claims are Sam's Facility
Closing/Overnight Procedures Policy and Associate Pay Policy,
which, acting in tandem, result in the widespread denial of minimum
wages and overtime pay to hourly associates who work closing
shifts. First, under Sam's facility closing policy, once the store
is closed for business to the general public, all doors must be
locked. However, the policy does not require that a key carrier be
permanently stationed at the exit to let associates out. Next,
Sam's Associate Pay Policy requires associates to clock out when
"no longer performing work" yet it does not identify time spent
waiting to be released from the store as a compensable activity or
as a type of "work." It further warns that associates who incur
unapproved overtime, which often results from this off-the-clock
wait time, may be subject to disciplinary action up to and
including termination of employment.
Sam's West is an American chain of membership-only retail warehouse
clubs owned and operated by Walmart Inc., founded in 1983 and named
after Walmart founder Sam Walton.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 11,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ESf0ZG
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP APC
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-Mail: sahagii@aol.com
SARMA COLLECTIONS: Court Dismisses Weisz's Amended FDCPA Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOSHE WEISZ, individually, and on behalf of other
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. SARMA COLLECTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-06230 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M.
Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Weisz brings the putative class action under the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et
seq., against Defendant Sarma, in connection with the Defendant's
alleged use of a letter vendor to send a collection letter to the
Plaintiff.
Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. The Defendant served a memorandum of law in support of
its motion on Feb. 18, 2022, the Plaintiff served his opposition
brief on March 16, 2022, and the Defendant's reply memorandum of
law in further support of its motion was served on March 30, 2022.
All motion papers were filed on March 30, 2022.
II. Background
The Defendant is a debt collector. The dispute arises out of the
Defendant's alleged disclosure of the Plaintiff's personal
information to a third-party vendor to send collection letters to
the Plaintiff on July 22, 2020 and Aug. 26, 2020. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant's actions are in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692c(b), which states, with exceptions not relevant, that
"a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the
collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer,
his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by
law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of
the debt collector."
The Plaintiff originally brought the putative class action on July
22, 2021. The Defendant answered the complaint on Aug. 20, 2021,
and the Court held an initial conference on Nov. 2, 2021. The
parties engaged in certain targeted disclosure pursuant to the
Court's direction and were unsuccessful in their attempts to
resolve the matter.
The Plaintiff thereafter sought, and the Court granted, leave to
file the Amended Complaint. The Defendant then filed a letter
seeking a pre-motion conference to discuss its anticipated motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of standing. After
receiving the Plaintiff's opposition letter, the Court held a
pre-motion conference and set a briefing schedule. The motion was
fully briefed on March 30, 2022.
III. Analysis
The Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages only and does not
allege in the Amended Complaint that he was harmed in any way by
the alleged FDCPA violations. He argues, in his opposition, that
the concrete harm requirement for purposes of Article III is
satisfied because he alleges a "close historical or common-law
analogue for his asserted injury."
The Plaintiff finds support for this argument in the
since-superseded Eleventh Circuit opinion of Hunstein v. Preferred
Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 994 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2021)
("Hunstein I"); and a decision that has since been vacated pending
an en banc rehearing, Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt.
Servs., Inc., 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir. 2021) ("Hunstein II").
Specifically, he contends that the mere disclosure of his private
information to a third party in violation of the plain language of
the FDCPA is analogous to public disclosure of his private
information (i.e., invasion of privacy) and therefore presents the
same kind of harm as the common law analogue. Plaintiff explains
that "'improperly sharing personal information with a third party'
closely resembles an invasion of privacy."
The Defendant points out, however, that the Plaintiff does not even
allege an invasion of privacy -- the Plaintiff does not plead that
any employee of the letter vendor reviewed or otherwise saw his
information, and courts in the Circuit have concluded that Article
III standing is lacking for this type of claim absent allegations
of a concrete injury. The Defendant argues that the case should be
dismissed following the same rationale applied in Sputz v. Alltran
Fin., LP, No. 21-CV-04663, 2021 WL 5772033 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5,
2021).
Judge Halpern agrees, and finds eminently sound the logic,
reasoning, and conclusion of Judge Seibel's decision in Sputz,
which rejected that the plaintiff's reliance on the invasion of
privacy tort. Simply put, the Plaintiff's failure to plead a
concrete harm sufficient to establish standing deprives the Court
of jurisdiction over his claim. The Amended Complaint, therefore,
must be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Halper granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. The case management conference scheduled for May
2, 2022, is canceled as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycks7ydh from
Leagle.com.
SELECT REHABILITATION: McLaughlin Seeks Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC and
SELECT REHABILITATION INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this case to proceed collectively
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) section 216b;
and
2. requiring the Defendants to produce the required class
list, and authorizing the Plaintiffs and their counsel to
send notice of this action to all current or formerly
employed Therapists and Program Managers (PM) aka
Directors of Rehab (DOR) employed with the Defendants and
its predecessors within the preceding three years to the
present.
The Plaintiffs have brought this FLSA 216b collective action
against the Defendants, alleging willful violations of the FLSA and
a scheme to avoid paying overtime wages to a group or "class" of:
"All hourly-paid, non-exempt employees by permitting them to
suffer to work off the clock, with their knowledge,
encouragement and pressure, all hours over 40 in each and
every work week in order to complete their job duties and
requirements in violation of FLSA."
The Plaintiffs contend that thw Defendants have a long, pervasive
history of willfully violating the FLSA and failing to pay
Therapists and PM overtime wages. The Plaintiffs and the class of
similarly situated at issue were hourly non-exempt employees and
worked in the following positions with similar job requirements and
pursuant to nationally created job descriptions: Physical Therapist
(PT), Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA), Occupational Therapists
(OT), Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA), Speech
Language Pathologist (SLP), Program Manager (PM) (a/k/a Director of
Rehab (DOR)), including McLaughlin (PM-PT), Vanderveen (PM-SLP),
and Lembke (PTA); all working from Select's managed health care and
nursing homes, and as per its website, in 43 states including:
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Penn. and Wisconsin. In addition, a PM-SLP from Kansas,
who has not joined, Paulette Claeys declares that the therapists in
her facility who she supervised suffered to work overtime hours off
the clock.
Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive physical, occupational
and speech therapy services to patients in thousands of sites
across the country.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 13,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vJacSq
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave., No. 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
SELENE FINANCE: Weinberger Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARC WEINBERGER and KAREN WEINBERGER, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. SELENE FINANCE LP, Case No.
0:22-cv-60785 (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2022) is a class action lawsuit
for Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
Due to financial hardship, the Plaintiffs became delinquent in
payment and defaulted on their mortgage. On March 5, 2014
foreclosure proceedings on the subject mortgage were instituted by
Green Tree Servicing LLC, the apparent successor to the Lender, in
the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, for which judgment was entered on January 29, 2019,
the suit says.
On February 2022 the Weinbergers, through their authorized agent,
sent a written request to SELENE for an accurate payoff statement
pursuant to 12 C.F.R. section 1026.36(c)(3).
On February 22, 2022, SELENE responded to Plaintiffs’ payoff
request by sending a letter statement purporting to be a payoff
quote. However, Defendant SELENE's February 22, 2022 payoff letter
was unclear, misleading and inaccurate as it contains line items of
charges which are completely vague and identified only as "Deferred
Balance", "Escrow/Impound", and "Corporate Advance (s) Balance".
The composition and the amounts comprising these charges are not
itemized or disclosed, with no explanation as to their propriety.
In addition to the vagueness of the charges for "Deferred Balance"
"Escrow/Impound", and "Corporate Advance (s) Balance" the February
22, 2022 Payoff Letter contains a demand for payment for "Unpaid
Late Charges." However, there is no indication of the origination
of these fees or their propriety. Indeed, as SELENE is acutely
aware, any late fees that are assessed post foreclosure and
acceleration are expressly prohibited by the mortgage and are
therefore improper.
This is a putative class action brought under rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Plaintiffs the Weinbergers, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against one of the country's largest loan servicers, SELENE FINANCE
LP. SELENE is employed by lenders to "service” mortgages on their
behalf. Plaintiffs and the Class Members are homeowners whose homes
have been in foreclosure. SELENE is servicer of the mortgage loans
which encumber Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' homes. As a
servicer, SELENE regularly acts as a debt collector.
SELENE is a mortgage loan servicer that regularly services mortgage
loans in Florida, including loans owned or assigned by Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott David Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-7062
E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
- and -
Jessica L. Kerr, Esq.
THE ADVOCACY GROUP
100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (954) 282-1858
Facsimile: (954) 282-8277
E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com
SHARED IMAGING: Seeks Denial of Ranger Provisional Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONICA RANGER,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
SHARED IMAGING, a Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00401-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the
Defendant Shared Imaging asks the Court to enter an order that the
Plaintiff's motion for Provisional Certification be denied in its
entirety.
The Plaintiff's motion is premature, because the parties lack an
enforceable agreement, and even if such an agreement existed (which
it did not), the Plaintiff failed to fulfill the required provision
of seeking prior approval of the instant Motion from Defendant.
Moreover, Plaintiff otherwise lacks any discovery or evidence to
establish requirements for certification under Rule 23, the
Defendant contends.
In her Motion, the Plaintiff seeks settlement approval prematurely,
because no enforceable settlement agreement exists arising from the
parties' executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and -- even if
the MOU was deemed enforceable (which Defendant denies) -- the
Plaintiff failed to obtain Defendant's prior approval before filing
the Motion, as required by Paragraph of the MOU.
The Plaintiff admits in her own Motion that, "The proposed
settlement class is comprised of current or former employees of
Defendant who worked a total of 5,428 workweeks through the date of
the execution of the MOU."
Yet, Plaintiff also claims that the same number of workweeks must
also apply to the entire "Class Period," i.e., the earlier of
preliminary approval or 120 days after the parties executed the
MOU.
Shared Imaging obviously did not intend to predict the number of
workweeks for putative class members four months into the future,
and the parties' correspondence on this issue clearly show that the
MOU lacks a "meeting of the minds" necessary to constitute an
enforceable agreement in any capacity, let alone for the purpose of
approving a class action settlement.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 13, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MFRL8d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Linda M. Moroney, Esq.
Natalie Fujikawa, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 986-5900
Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
E-mail: nfujikawa@grsm.com
lmoroney@grsm.com
- and -
E. Jason Tremblay, Esq.
Alexander L. Reich, Esq.
SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
161 N. Clark St., Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 876-7100
E-mail: jason.tremblay@saul.com
alexander.reich@saul.com
- and -
Henry A. Platt, Esq.
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
1919 Pennsylvania avenue, N.W., Suite 550
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 342-3447
E-mail: henry.platt@saul.com
SMITH-EMERY: Arbuckle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith-Emery Of San
Francisco, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Randy Martin
Arbuckle, individually and on behalf of, all others similarly
situated v. Smith-Emery Of San Francisco, Inc., Does 1 through 20,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599170 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., April 12, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Smith-Emery -- https://www.smithemery.com/ -- has been providing
inspection and materials testing services for public agencies and
private companies for the past 113 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Machine Generates Toxic Ozone, Phillips Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL PHILLIPS, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., 1:22-cv-00794-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., April
25, 2022) alleges that SoClean has used false and misleading
representations about its devices to market the SoClean 2 CPAP
Sanitizing Machine, the SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing machine, and
their predecessor devices (collectively "the SoClean devices").
SoClean manufactures and markets devices used to clean continuous
positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines, which treat sleep apnea
since approximately 2012.
The SoClean devices work by generating ozone to sterilize and
deodorize CPAP machines. Ozone is an unstable toxic gas with a
pungent characteristic odor -- sometimes described as "clean"
smelling – that can kill bacteria and viruses. To be effective as
a germicide, ozone must be present in a concentration far greater
than can be safely tolerated by people or animals.
Allegedly, SoClean's marketing materials fail to disclose that its
devices emit ozone, which is a longstanding requirement of federal
law. Instead, SoClean falsely represents that its devices use
"activated oxygen" to clean CPAP machines. SoClean markets the
devices as "safe" and "healthy," which is false give that they
generate toxic ozone gas at levels that substantially exceed
federal regulations. SoClean falsely represents that its devices
use "no water or chemicals" or "no harsh chemicals" to clean CPAP
machines, despite using ozone gas -- a harsh chemical that causes
respiratory problems in humans. SoClean represents that its devices
use the same sanitizing process found in "hospital sanitizing,"
however, hospitals cannot and do not use ozone sanitizers in spaces
occupied by patients. SoClean also claims that separately sold
filters convert "activated oxygen" into "regular oxygen," which is
false because SoClean's filters have no measurable effect on the
device's ozone output. Finally, SoClean falsely claims that its
devices are "sealed" such that "activated oxygen" (i.e., ozone)
does not escape the devices.
SoClean devices are so dangerous and destructive that several of
the largest manufacturers of CPAP machines in the United States
require purchasers to acknowledge that they have been informed that
if the purchaser uses a SoClean device to clean their CPAP machine,
the warranty of their CPAP machine will be voided, the suit added.
CPAP therapy is a common nonsurgical treatment primarily used to
treat sleep apnea. CPAP therapy typically involves the use of a
hose and a nasal or facemask device that delivers constant and
steady air pressure to an individual's throat to help individuals
breathe.
Sleep apnea is a common sleep disorder characterized by repeated
interruptions in breathing throughout an individual’s sleep
cycle. These interruptions, called "apneas," are caused when the
soft tissue in an individual’s airway collapses. The airway
collapse prevents oxygen from reaching the individual’s lungs
which can cause a buildup of carbon dioxide. If the individual's
brain senses the buildup of carbon dioxide, it will briefly rouse
the individual from sleep so that the individual's airway can
reopen. Often these interruptions are so brief that the individual
will not remember.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Miller, Esq.
SAEED & LITTLE LLP
133 West Market St., #189
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 721-9214
Facsimile: (888) 422-3151
E-mail: david@sllawfirm.com
SOUTHERN FIDELITY: Bid for Leave to File Surreply OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER THACKER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated within the state of
Louisiana, v. SOUTHERN FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-02313-SM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan
entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file
surreply to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
discovery
Southern Fidelity is an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v9cWcx at no extra charge.[CC]
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Seeks Reconsideration of March 29, 2022 Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas Cox, et al., on
their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated others, v.
Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-05172-EK-VMS (E.D.N.Y.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
reconsideration of the Court's March 29, 2022 memorandum opinion
and order.
Spirit Airlines is a major American ultra-low-cost carrier
headquartered in Miramar, Florida, in the Miami metropolitan area.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36PppJ9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark W. Robertson, Esq.
Jason Zarrow, Esq.
M. Tristan Morales, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
E-mail: mrobertson@omm.com
jzarrow@omm.com
tmorales@omm.com
SPLENDID SMILES: Gervasi Sues Over Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------
Gina Gervasi, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
SPLENDID SMILES FAMILY DENTISTRY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, STEFANO
GRASSO, in both his individual and professional capacities, and
ALLISON CORAPI, in both her individual and professional capacities,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02330 (D.N.J., April 22, 2022), is brought under
the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD") for
discrimination, for failing to provide her with a reasonable
accommodation related to her pregnancy, and retaliation; and under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff endured a daily onslaught of abhorrent and sexist
comments and conduct by Grasso, who co-owns the Practice with his
wife, Corapi. While it would be impossible to detail all of
Grasso's comments and conduct herein, Grasso regularly made lewd,
sexual remarks to Plaintiff referring to men's penises and women's
"pussies" and the Plaintiff's physical appearance, in addition to
interrogating the Plaintiff about her romantic relationships and
pressuring her to share stories of her and her friends "partying."
Throughout her employment, Plaintiff repeatedly complained to
Grasso and Corapi about Grasso's heinous conduct; however, the
Defendants continually refused to take action to address the
hostile work environment at Splendid Smiles or otherwise redress
her complaints.
In December 2021, the Plaintiff disclosed her pregnancy to Corapi
and asked the Defendants to provide her with certain
pregnancy-related accommodations. The Defendants not only refused
to accommodate Plaintiff, but immediately began searching for her
replacement in preparation for her eventual discriminatory firing.
Indeed, roughly two months after Plaintiff disclosed her pregnancy,
the Defendants callously terminated her employment, leaving her
five months pregnant and without a job. Further, the Defendants
have engaged in a pattern and practice of violating wage-and-hour
laws, as to both Plaintiff and all others similarly situated,
including failing to pay overtime and failing to tender wages owed
on employees' regularly scheduled paydays, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from December 2014
through February 22, 2022.
Splendid Smiles is a domestic professional corporation that
operates as a dental office.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
Taylor J. Crabill, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-983-9330
Facsimile: 212-983-9331
Email: ahartzband@faruqilaw.com
tcrabill@faruqilaw.com
STAR FINANCIAL: Ind. App. Flips Arbitration Order in Decker Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Cliff Decker and Wendy Decker, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants-Plaintiffs v.
Star Financial Group, Inc., Appellee-Defendant, Court of Appeals
Case No. 21A-PL-2191 (Ind. App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana
reversed the trial court's grant of a motion to compel arbitration
filed by Star Financial.
I. Introduction
Cliff Decker and Wendy Decker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, brought a class action complaint against
their bank, Star Financial, for the allegedly improper assessment
and collection of overdraft fees. The Deckers appeal the trial
court's grant of a motion to compel arbitration filed by Star
Financial. The arbitration provision was part of a modification of
the Terms and Conditions of the account and was attached to the end
of the Deckers' monthly statement, which was provided
electronically. The Deckers contend, in part, that they did not
receive reasonable notice of the addition of the arbitration
provision, and reasonable notice was required by the Terms and
Conditions.
II. Background
Star Financial is the parent company of Star Financial Bank, and
the Deckers had a checking account with Star Financial Bank.
On Oct. 17, 2019, Star Financial assessed a $37 overdraft fee
against the Deckers, and the Deckers allege that the overdraft fee
was improper. In approximately June 2020, the Deckers' counsel
contacted Star Financial's general counsel. They discussed Star
Financial's overdraft fee practices, and the Deckers' counsel
emailed Star Financial's general counsel examples of complaints
brought against other banks and credit unions for allegedly similar
conduct.
The Deckers are "e-statement customers, meaning they have directed
Star Financial to send them their checking account statements and
other notices and disclosures relating to the terms and conditions
of their checking account via email." On Aug. 26, 2020, Star
Financial sent the Deckers an email. Although the email included
links to the updated Miscellaneous Fee Schedule and the Privacy
Notice, the email did not mention changes to the account's Terms
and Conditions.
When the Deckers logged into their account as directed by the
email, they would have found a 14-page monthly statement, which
contained: (1) 11 pages of information on transactions for the
account; (2) a page of images of the checks; and (3) the following
Arbitration and No Class Action Clause Addendum on pages 13 and 14
of the statement. The monthly statement did not mention the revised
Terms and Conditions except for the inclusion of the Addendum at
the end of the statement. The Deckers did not see or review the
Addendum and continued to be customers of Star Financial.
The Deckers filed a class action complaint against Star Financial
on March 18, 2021, regarding the overdraft fees. In April 2021,
Star Financial filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss
the Deckers' complaint. Star Financial argued that all of the
Deckers' claims against Star Financial are "subject to mandatory
individual arbitration pursuant to the parties' written agreement
to arbitrate."
The Deckers filed a response and argued that the Deckers did not
assent to the Addendum because: (1) the Terms and Conditions allows
for "changes" but not "additions"; (2) the Addendum was made in bad
faith or is unreasonable; and (3) the Deckers did not have
"reasonable notice" of the Addendum.
After a hearing, the trial court granted Star Financial's motion to
compel arbitration. The trial court found: (1) the word "change" in
the Agreement permitted Star Financial to add the arbitration
provisions; (2) the Addendum was clear and the Deckers accepted the
terms of the Addendum by continuing to maintain their account with
Star Financial; (3) the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the
relationship between bank and checking account holder is recognized
only where the alleged injury is fraud; and (4) Star Financial
provided reasonable notice to the Deckers of the Addendum.
Accordingly, the trial court granted Star Financial's motion to
compel arbitration and dismiss the Deckers' complaint.
The Deckers now appeal.
III. Analysis
The Deckers appeal the trial court's grant of Star Financial's
motion to compel arbitration. A trial court's decision on a motion
to compel arbitration is reviewed de novo." Also, to the extent the
Court of Appeals must interpret the parties' agreements, it applies
a de novo standard of review to questions of contract
interpretation.
The Court of Appeals finds that the Terms and Conditions, which
were created by Star Financial, required it to provide customers
with "reasonable notice" of a change to the Terms and Conditions.
Star Financial provided notice to the Deckers by sending them an
email with a link to the Deckers' monthly statement. We note that
customers do not have a deadline to review their monthly statements
for a bank account, and a monthly statement is not a contract.
Although the email itself included links to an updated
Miscellaneous Fee Schedule and the Privacy Notice, the email did
not mention time-sensitive changes to the account's Terms and
Conditions or the addition of an arbitration provision.
Moreover, when the Deckers would have clicked the link to their
monthly statement and logged in, the first page of the monthly
statement did not mention changes to the account's Terms and
Conditions or the addition of an arbitration provision. Rather, the
arbitration provision was placed on pages 13 and 14 of the monthly
statement. The Deckers would have found the arbitration provision
only by scrolling to the end of the monthly statement, which they
may or may not have reviewed within 10 days. Nothing in the email
or monthly statement alerted the Deckers that a time-sensitive
modification to the Terms and Conditions, which included an
arbitration provision, was included at the end of the monthly
statement.
The Court of Appeals concludes that Star Financial failed to
provide the Deckers with reasonable notice of the arbitration
provision. Placing the Addendum, which contained the arbitration
provision and time-sensitive opt out provision, at the end of the
routine monthly statement with no notice to the Deckers that
something was unusual about the monthly statement was not
reasonably calculated to provide the Deckers with notice. Under
these circumstances, the Court of Appeals concludes that the
Deckers were not provided with reasonable notice, which was
required by the Terms and Conditions. Accordingly, the Deckers did
not assent to the arbitration provision. The trial court, thus,
erred by granting Star Financial's motion to compel.
IV. Conclusion
The Court of Appeals concludes that Star Financial failed to
provide the Deckers with reasonable notice of the addition of the
arbitration provision to the Terms and Conditions. Accordingly, the
trial court erred by granting Star Financial's motion to compel
arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/379em2p4 from Leagle.com.
Irwin B. Levin -- ILEVIN@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Vess A. Miller, Lynn
A. Toops, Lisa M. LaFornara, Tyler B. Ewigleben, Cohen & Malad,
LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, John Steinkamp, John Steinkamp &
Associates, P.C., in Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for the
Appellants.
Scott S. Morrisson -- smorrisson@kdlegal.com -- Krieg Devault, LLP,
Carmel, Indiana, Libby Yin Goodknight, Krieg Devault, LLP, in
Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for the Appellee.
STATE FARM: Bid to Stay Discovery in Nichols Class Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLLYNN NICHOLS, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Civil Action 2:22-cv-16 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery.
I. Background
Plaintiff Nichols filed a Class Action Complaint on Jan. 4, 2022,
against Defendant State Farm. According to the Plaintiff, the
Defendant "systematically applied" a "typical negotiation"
deduction in valuing insureds' total loss vehicles even though such
a deduction is not permitted under either Ohio law or the
Defendant's form auto insurance policies.
The Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of this deduction,
insurance payments were reduced. She proposes to represent a class
of State Farm Ohio insureds asserting claims for breach of contract
and unjust enrichment.
On March 14, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and, in
the alternative, requested that the Court compels an appraisal and
stay the action. Subsequently, the Defendant filed the current
motion to stay discovery.
In its motion, the Defendant contends that a stay of discovery is
necessary for two reasons. First, the Defendant asserts that,
because the Plaintiff has not complied with the appraisal provision
of the contract, she cannot establish injury, damages, or Article
III standing. Further, it contends that all remaining relevant
factors weigh in favor of a discovery stay.
II. Discussion
In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts commonly consider the
following factors: (1) the stage of litigation; (2) whether the
non-moving party will be unduly prejudiced or tactically
disadvantaged; (3) whether a stay simplifies the issues; and (4)
whether the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court is
reduced. The movant bears the burden of showing both a need for
delay and that "neither the other party nor the public will suffer
harm from entry of the order."
Applying these principles to the case, Judge Preston Deavers
concludes that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that a stay
of discovery is justified. The case does not present a question of
immunity nor is the Complaint obviously frivolous such that the
Court could conclude that the motion to dismiss is likely to be
granted. Rather, as noted, the essence of the Defendant's argument
is that discovery should be stayed because its motion to dismiss,
at least in part, is addressed to the threshold jurisdictional
issue of standing. That a motion to dismiss relies on a
jurisdictional issue does not necessarily weigh in favor of
granting a stay.
This is so even if the jurisdictional challenge is directed to the
issue of standing. Rather, where the issues raised in a potentially
dispositive motion reasonably can be characterized as fairly
debatable, the Court routinely has declined to grant a stay.
Without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the Defendant's
dispositive motion, a brief overview of the parties' briefing
reveals that to be the situation.
The Defendant likewise has not demonstrated that all other relevant
factors weigh in favor of a stay, Judge Preston Deavers holds. To
be sure, the Defendant contends that discovery in the putative
state-wide class action will burden both it and the Court. But,
this argument, according to Judge Preson Deavers, is directed to
presumed discovery and relies on nothing more than speculation.
Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide other
options for addressing Defendant's concerns short of a complete
stay.
Also, Judge Preston Deavers is not convinced, as the Defendant
suggests, that the particular status of the case as a putative
statewide class action weighs in favor of a complete stay. Notably,
other courts have declined to grant a complete stay of discovery in
similar circumstances.
As for the remaining factors, the Defendant does little to
demonstrate that a stay of discovery will be of no consequence to
the Plaintiff. At most, the Defendant attempts to minimize the
nature of the Plaintiff's alleged injury, characterizing the
Plaintiff merely as "suing for damages" for a "total-loss accident
that occurred more than a year ago." The Defendant also fails to
explain with any specificity how a stay of discovery will simplify
the issues presented in this case. At most, on the current record,
the Defendant has demonstrated only that the case is in its early
stages. However, this lone factor, when weighed against the others,
is not sufficient to support a stay of discovery.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Preston Deavers finds that the
Defendant has not carried its burden to show that a stay of
discovery is appropriate under the circumstances presented in the
case. She, therefore, concludes that a temporary stay pending
resolution of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is not warranted.
The current stay is lifted and the Defendant's Motion to Stay
Discovery is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6j8u8c from Leagle.com.
TARGET CORPORATION: Bujalski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dana Bujalski, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No.
2022-LA-000086 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth
Judicial Circuit Kane County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on April 13, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01901 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American big
box department store chain headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth Christine Chavez, Esq.
Bret Koch Pufahl, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
10 W State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
Phone: (630) 232-7450
Email: ecc@fmcolaw.com
bkp@fmcolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East, 6th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 239-3465
Email: atagvoryan@blankrome.com
- and -
Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 N. 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 569-5553
Email: Rosenthal-j@blankrome.com
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Rosen Law Reminds of May 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
(NASDAQ: ERIC) between April 27, 2017 and February 25, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important May 2, 2022 lead
plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Ericsson 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 Ericsson class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3808 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 May 2, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ericsson overstated the extent
to which it had reformed its business practices to eliminate the
use of bribes to secure business in foreign countries; (2) Ericsson
had paid bribes to the terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq
and Syria ("ISIS" or the "Islamic State") to gain access to certain
transport routes in Iraq; (3) accordingly, Ericsson's revenues
derived from its operations in Iraq were, in at least substantial
part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4)
as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Ericsson class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3808 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. [GN]
TESLA INC: Ruiz PAGA Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROCIO JUAREZ RUIZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC., dba TESLA MOTORS,
INC.; ATLANTIC SOLUTIONS GROUP INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2132323, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00693 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys Generals Act and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks,
failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely
pay final wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair business practices.
Tesla, Inc., doing business as Tesla Motors, Inc., is an American
automotive and clean energy company based in Austin, Texas.
Atlantic Solutions Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in
Ontario, Canada. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
Andrea Fellion, Esq.
Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com
kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com
THIRD WORTHINGTON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ranney Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA RANNEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THIRD WORTHINGTON, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00195-SMD (M.D. Ala., April 22, 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 Ranney was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver.
THIRD WORTHINGTON, INC. owns and operates Papa John's franchises in
Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
TOM BIRDSEY: Kohlberg Suit Removed to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marjorie Kohlberg, individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of Edmund Kohlberg; Melissa Lassor;
Thomas McDougall, individually and as Trustee of the Thomas G.
McDougall Trust dated November 17, 2005; David Eijadi, individually
and as Trustee of the David Azziz Eijadi and Barbara Anne Eijadi
Revocable Trust Dated May 27, 2015; Jason Steinbock; Peter D.
Ottavio, individually and as Trustee of the Peter D. Ottavio
Revocable Living Trust dated February 19, 2016; Betsy Sears; Mary
Lou Jurkowski; on behalf of Themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Tom Birdsey, Long Point Capital, Inc., Long Point
Capital Fund II, L.P., Long Point Capital Partners II, L.P. Long
Point Capital Fund III, L.P., Loing Point Capital Partners III,
L.P., Ira Starr, Norman Scherr, Eric Von Stroh, Greatbanc Trust
Company, Case No. 651555/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court,
County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 13, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-03079-UA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Long Point Capital -- https://www.longpointcapital.com/ -- is a
private investment firm that invests in great companies with highly
capable management teams and strong growth prospects.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan Michael Sperling, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP (NYC)
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405
Phone: (212) 841-1000
Fax: (212) 841-1010
Email: jsperling@cov.com
TRANSUNION LLC: Konig Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICE KONIG v.
TRANSUNION, LLC; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 7:18-cv-07299 (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying this action as a class
action on behalf of the Classes:
-- BANA Class
"All consumers who, from February 14, 2018 and through
final judgment in this matter, made a dispute to one or
more consumer reporting agencies regarding the payment
history of an adverse aged BANA credit account, to which
BANA responded without marking the account as disputed;"
-- BANA Subclass
"All consumers who, from February 14, 2018 and through
final judgment in this matter, made a dispute to one or
more consumer reporting agencies regarding the payment
history of an adverse aged BANA credit account, and to
which BANA responded to the dispute by permitting the
account to continue reporting and did not provide any
"date of first delinquency."
-- Trans Union Class
"All consumers about whom, from February 14, 2018 and
through final judgment in this matter, Trans Union
disseminated a consumer report to a third party containing
a BANA credit account with a status of "current," a "last
payment" date more than seven-and-one-half years prior to
the date of the report, and solely delinquent payment
history within the available data."
The Plaintiff has asserted claims for Defendants' violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)h.
TransUnion provides a spectrum of risk and credit analysis
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vRZlpe
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS , P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
ea@zemellawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street; Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Ratcliff Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER RATCLIFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-005876 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April
22, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
is a market-leading provider of accounts receivable management and
student loan servicing solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
TYSON FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNIE THORNTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-05077-TLB (W.D.
Ark., April 22, 2022) seeks recover these unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed by Tyson to them and Tyson's other
non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but Tyson's decision to make its own
non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Like many other companies across the United States, Tyson's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021.
That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout
Tyson's organization. As a result, Tyson'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.
Annie Thornton is one such worker for Tyson, the suit says.
Tyson 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, Tyson used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates
to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these non-exempt
hourly and salaried employees, the suit added.
Tyson pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically
vulnerable people in its workforce. Tyson made the economic burden
of the Kronos hack fall on front-line workers -- average Americans
-- who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages to make
ends meet.
Thornton represents a collective of similarly situated workers
under the FLSA, defined as:
"All current or former non-exempt employees of Tyson (including
its subsidiaries and alter egos) who worked in the United
States
at any time since the onset of the Kronos ransomware attack, on
or about December 11, 2021, to the present."[BN]
Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999 5228
E-mail: matt@aprmet.law
TYSON FOODS: Freeman Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY FREEMAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.,
and TYSON POULTRY, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-05175-PKH (W.D. Ark.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
A. Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
consisting of:
"all Production Supervisors who worked for Defendants
company-wide within the three years prior to the filing of
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and to approve notice to
those current and former employees, pursuant to § 216(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);
B. Approving his proposed Notice and Consent to Join and
proposed method of distribution, including mailing,
emailing, and text message;
C. Approving form and content;
D. Certifying this case as a Class Action under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23 on behalf of all Production Supervisors who worked
in Arkansas and order distribution of the Class Action
Notice proposed by Plaintiff;
E. Directing the Defendants to produce the requested contact
information of each putative collective and class member
in an electronically importable and malleable electronic
format, such as Excel (.xls), within 14 days after the
Court's Order is entered; and
F. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days to begin upon the
date of initial mailing of Notice and Consent, and equal
opt-out notice period for Rule 23 Arkansas Class Members.
The Plaintiff brought this suit individually and on behalf of all
other current and former Production Supervisors who worked for the
Defendants company-wide to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and cost pursuant to
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vjO81K
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30 th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza No. 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
- and -
Matthew D. Haynie
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
UNITED SERVICES: Coleman, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coleman et al v. United
Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-00217-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying two classes, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
-- Good Driver Class:
"All (a) enlisted persons, (b) who at any time since
February 4, 2017 5 had an automobile insurance policy
including collision coverage from GIC, (c) who qualified
as good drivers under Cal. Ins. Code section 1861.025 and
were not offered a good driver discount from USAA, (d) who
paid more for that policy than they would have paid in
USAA, and (e) who, at any time in which clauses (a)
through (d) have been satisfied, garaged vehicles in the
State of California;" and
-- Discrimination Class:
"All (a) "enlisted" persons, (b) who at any time since
February 4, 2018 6 had an auto insurance policy including
collision coverage from GIC, (c) who paid more for that
policy than they would have paid in USAA, 7 and (d) who,
at any time in which clauses (a) through (c) have been
satisfied, garaged vehicles in the State of California."
In both definitions, "enlisted persons" are active military
personnel in pay grades E-4 1 through E-6 or military veterans
whose highest pay grade was E-1 through E-6.
The Plaintiffs define the Discrimination Class as having a start
date of February 4, 2018, based on their belief that a three-year
limitation period should apply to the discrimination claims in this
case. The California Supreme Court has not decided the limitations
period for either Unruh Act or Section 394(a) claims and, as a
result, this Court must predict what that Court would decide if
confronted with the issue, the Plaintiffs contend.
The Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of two classes of enlisted
personnel who purchased automobile insurance policies that included
collision coverage from Defendant USAA General Indemnity Company
("GIC").
The Defendants sell all members of both classes more expensive
policies than they would receive if they were officers. Both
classes satisfy all the requirements for certification under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23. The two Plaintiffs claim that Defendants United
Services Automobile 12 Association ("USAA") and its subsidiary GIC
harm members of the Good Driver Class by violating section
1861.16(b) of the California Insurance Code.
The Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants intentionally
discriminate against enlisted military personnel and veterans. The
Defendants segregate enlisted personnel and military officers into
different companies, GIC and USAA, and charge enlisted personnel
substantially higher rates for the same auto insurance coverage.
USAA nited Services Automobile Association a San Antonio-based
Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies
including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal
inter-insurance exchange and subsidiaries offering banking,
investing, and insurance to people and families who serve, or
served, in the United States Armed Forces.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated April 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36SVO1u
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
Benjamin Powell, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 South San Vincente Blvd., Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
E-mail: Harvey@ConsumerWatchdog.org
Ben@ConsumerWatchdog.org
- and -
Jay Angoff, Esq.
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
Michael Lieder, Esq.
Desiree Langley, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
E-mail: Jay.Angoff@findjustice.com
CMehri@findjustice.com
MLieder@findjustice.com
Dlangley@findjustice.com
- and -
Gary Mason, Esq.
Danielle Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, D.C. 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: GMason@MasonLLP.com
DPerry@MasonLLP.com
UNITED SERVICES: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EILEEN-GAYLE COLEMAN and
ROBERT CASTRO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA
GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00217-CAB-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Parties stipulate and agree to:
(a) extend the time in which Defendants may file their
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
by 28 days; and
(b) extend the time in which Plaintiffs may file their reply
in support of their Motion for Class Certification by 21
days.
-- Existing Deadlines.
On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs served on the Court's
chambers via 9 an unredacted copy of their Motion for
Class Certification, and also filed a motion to
provisionally file documents related to the Motion
under seal. On April 11, 2022, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' motion and continued the deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their Motion to April 15, 2022.
In the same order, the Court set the deadline for
Defendants to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for April 29, 2022, and the deadline for
Plaintiffs' to file their reply May 6, 2022. The
hearing is presently noticed for May 13, 2022.
The Defendants intend to request oral argument.
-- New Dates Proposed by the Parties.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to extend
the Defendants' deadline to respond to the Motion for
Class Certification by 28 days from the previous
deadline, up to and including May 27, 2022.
The parties have also agreed to extend Plaintiffs'
deadline to respond to Defendants' Opposition by 21
days from the previous deadline, up to and including
June 17, 2022.
The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based
Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies
including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal
inter-insurance exchange and subsidiaries offering banking,
investing, and insurance to people and families who serve, or
served, in the United States Armed Forces.
A copy of the Parties order dated April 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KirT0f at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG; MEHRI & SKALET,
PLLC; MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
The Defendants are represented by:
Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
James A. Tsouvalas, Esq.
Adrienne Liu, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: kscolnick@gibsondunn.com
jtsouvalas@gibsondunn.com
aliu@gibsondunn.com
UNITED STATES: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et. al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et. at., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered
an order granting the Parties' joint motion for an extension of
time:
-- The Defendants shall file the certified administrative
record and Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel on or before May 6, 2022.
The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LnzKuS at no extra charge.[CC]
UNKNOWN BURGESS: Willie Curtis Losses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE CURTIS v. UNKNOWN
BURGESS, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00266-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Phillip J. Green entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and appointment of counsel.
The Court said, "Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is
justified only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether
to exercise its discretion, the Court should consider the
complexity of the issues, the procedural posture of the case, and
the Plaintiff's apparent ability to prosecute the action without
the help of counsel. The Court has carefully considered these
factors and determines that, at this stage of the case, the
assistance of counsel does not appear necessary to the proper
presentation of Plaintiff's position."
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. section 1983. The Plaintiff has filed a motion for class
certification and appointment of counsel. The Plaintiff requests
class certification because the issue raised in his complaint
"affects over 100,000 across the United States, who have had $600
of either their $1800 or $1400 IRS-stimulus-money unlawfully
garnished due to their incarceration."
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MyI4Il at no extra charge.[CC]
URION CONSTRUCTION: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Ramirez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMIREZ, ALEJANDRO NAVARRETE, WILMER CAIZA, and SEGUNDO
YANZAPANTA individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. URION CONSTRUCTION LLC and HERIBERTO GONZALEZ SIRIAS,
as an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-03342 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2022)
seeks to recover compensatory damages and liquidated damages for
Defendants' violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was employed by Urion as a construction worker while
performing related miscellaneous duties such as waterproofing,
corking and painting for the Defendants, from in or around April
2011 until in or around January 2022.
Although the Plaintiff regularly worked 54 hours and 45 hours or
more hours during the relevant statutory period, the Defendants
allegedly did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half
(1.5) for his hours regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Mikhail Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
USA INTERIORS: Cashabamba Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR P. CASHABAMBA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA INTERIORS LLC and OSCAR A.
RUIZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03337 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely
pay wages, failure to provide a written wage notice, and failure to
furnish accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker while performing related miscellaneous duties from in or
around October 2015 until in or around May 2019.
USA Interiors LLC is a contractor, with a principal office located
at 176 Kansas St., Hackensack, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
E-mail: jresila@schwabgasparini.com
UTILIKON LLC: Schwartz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spenser Schwartz, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. Utilikon LLC and Chagnon Earley, Case No. 4:22-cv-01319
(S.D. Tex., April 25, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay the overtime premium required by law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has a business plan that
includes paying non-exempt hourly employees the same hourly rate
for all hours worked, even those hours over 40 per workweek.
Mr. Schwartz was one of the workers hired by Defendant as an hourly
employee and not paid overtime pay, bringing this lawsuit against
Defendants to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
VENTURE SOLAR: Perrong Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 13, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perrong v. Venture Solar
Capital, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00005 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge
Kari A. Dooley entered an order on pretrial deadlines:
-- Dispositive motions, if any shall be filed on or before 60
days after a ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification .
-- The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification
by January 13, 2023 .
-- The Court will set a date for filing a joint trial
memorandum after the close of discovery.
-- The joint trial memorandum shall comport with this Court's
standing order, which will be separately docketed.
-- A telephonic status conference is scheduled for January 6,
2022 at 2:00 P.M.
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Venture Solar is a solar panel installation company serving the
Northeast.[CC]
VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Williams Suit Remanded to Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COLLEEN WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01179-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge John
A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
The action is remanded back to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento.
I. Background
The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Sacramento
County Superior Court on Jan. 17, 2019. She filed a first amended
complaint ("FAC") on Sept. 2, 2020. Defendant VibrantCare then
removed the action to the Court on July 6, 2021. The Defendant's
Notice of Removal asserts that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. S 1332(d). The Plaintiff
asserts that removal was improper and seeks remand on the grounds
that the Defendant has not met CAFA's jurisdictional amount in
controversy requirement.
The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant as an
hourly-paid or non-exempt employee within the state of California.
The Plaintiff's FAC contain nine causes of action against the
Defendant asserted on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated: (1) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and
1198 (Unpaid Overtime); (2) Violation of California Labor Code
Sections 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); (3)
Violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (Unpaid Rest
Period Premiums); (4) Violation of California Labor Code Sections
1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); (5) Violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely
Paid); (6) Violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a)
(Non-Compliant Wage Statements); (7) Violation of California Labor
Code Sections 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); (8)
Violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.;
and (9) Violation of California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq.
(California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004).
II. Discussion
Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over class
actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and
there exists at least minimal diversity of citizenship between the
parties and the class consists of at least 100 members. A defendant
may remove such an action from state to federal court.
The parties do not dispute that the class is sufficiently numerous
or that minimal diversity exists. The Plaintiff argues that remand
is proper only on the basis that she pleads entitlement to less
than $5 million in damages. The Defendant opposes remand arguing
that the amount in controversy is greater than $5 million.
The Defendant estimates the total amount in controversy exceeds
$10,529,582.11 based on class claims for unpaid overtime, meal
period premiums, rest periods premiums, untimely final wages,
inaccurate wage statements, minimum wages, and attorney's fees. It
submitted one set of calculations in its Notice of Removal and
another set in its opposition briefing.
a. Claim One: Unpaid Overtime
The Defendant argues the amount in controversy with respect to the
Plaintiff's class claim for unpaid wages is at least $428,189.79.
It contends that it is reasonable to apply a 100% violation rate
based on the Plaintiff's own allegations. The Plaintiff alleges the
"Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against
their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
California."
Judge Mendez agrees with the Plaintiff that the Defendant has not
provided sufficient evidence to support its putative class
calculations. He holds that the Defendant did not submit any other
supporting documents such as business records or spreadsheets for
the Court's consideration. In the absence of any supporting
document, the Court cannot evaluate and/or rely on the accuracy of
the Defendant's calculations. Lacking more evidence, the Defendant
has not proved the amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's claim
for unpaid overtime and the Court declines to credit its estimate
of $428, 189.79.
b. Remaining Claims
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's arguments about the
remaining claims fail for the same reason, namely that the damages
calculated are entirely speculative and based on insufficient
evidence in light of Defendant's burden to prove jurisdiction.
Judge Mendez agrees to the extent that the Defendant's calculations
are based on the class size, number of workweeks, or the average
rate of pay put forth in Tenconi's unsupported declaration. This
applies to the Defendant's calculations for claim two (meal period
premiums), claim three (rest period premiums), claim four (unpaid
minimum wages), and claim five (waiting time penalties).
This leaves only the Plaintiff's sixth claim for inaccurate wage
statements and statutory attorney's fees. Judge Mendez need not
address the parties' arguments about the sixth claim because, even
if the Court accepts the Defendant's estimate, the aggregate amount
in controversy is at most $1,488,500 based on: $1,190,800
(inaccurate pay statement penalties) + $297,700 (statutory
attorney's fees, 25% of $1,190,800, which is the total remaining
damages). Because the Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of
the evidence the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, removal
was improper.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Mendez granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand. The action is remanded back to the Superior Court
of Sacramento County, California. Judge Mendez ordered the clerk to
close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5avc4wx7 from Leagle.com.
VITAMINS BECAUSE: Bid to Exclude Kalman Testimony in Malgeri Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NOAH MALGERI, et al., Plaintiffs v. VITAMINS BECAUSE
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-22702-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES
(S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an Omnibus
Order:
a. denying Defendants Vitamins Because's, and aSquared Brands,
LLC's motions to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert,
Dr. Douglas S. Kalman; and
b. granting in part and denying in part Vitamins Because's
motion to strike Dr. Kalman's rebuttal report.
I. Background
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by several
Plaintiffs for claims arising from the purchase of fraudulently
mislabel and defectively manufactured dietary supplements.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that they purchased S-Adenosyl
Methionine ("SAM-e") dietary supplements manufactured by Vitamins
Because that were mislabeled and defectively manufactured in that
they contained significantly less amounts of the active SAM-e
ingredient than represented in their labels.
In support of their claims, the Plaintiffs retained Nutritionist
Dr. Douglas S. Kalman as an expert witness to provide testimony
regarding the deficiencies of SAM-e contained in the subject
dietary supplements. In accordance with the Court's Amended
Scheduling Order, the Plaintiffs timely disclosed Dr. Kalman's
initial expert report and his rebuttal on Oct. 29, 2021, and Dec.
31, 2021, respectively.
The matter is before the Court on Defendants Vitamins Because,
LLC's and CT Health Solutions, LLC's (collectively "Vitamins
Because"), and aSquared Brands, LLC's motions to exclude the
Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Douglas S. Kalman. Also before the Court is
Vitamins Because's motion to strike Dr. Kalman's rebuttal report.
The Plaintiffs filed timely responses to the three motions, to
which the Defendants replied accordingly. Therefore, the motions
are now ripe for disposition.
II. Analysis
Defendants Vitamins Because and aSquared move to strike the
opinions and exclude the testimony of Dr. Kalman on the basis of
near-identical Daubert challenges. Additionally, Vitamins Because
also moves to strike Dr. Kalman's rebuttal report on the grounds
that the report is not a proper rebuttal. The Plaintiffs respond by
noting that Dr. Kalman is both a qualified and reliable expert, and
by arguing that his rebuttal report is a proper rebuttal to the
expert report prepared by Dr. Nathalie Chevreau.
A. Whether Dr. Kalman is Qualified to Opine in this Case
Defendant Vitamins Because first seeks to strike the opinions of
Dr. Kalman and exclude his testimony on the basis that he is not
qualified to render his opinions in the case.
The Defendant's halfhearted, one-paragraph-long argument is
unpersuasive, Judge Torres holds. For starters, he finds that
instead of articulating arguments explaining why Dr. Kalman's
actual credentials and experience as a licensed Nutritionist and
nutrition-focused clinical researcher render him unsuitable for the
task at hand, the Defendant focuses on arbitrarily highlighting a
list of things that he is not. The Defendant also ignores the fact
that a review of Dr. Kalman's curriculum vitae makes it clear he is
well qualified to opine on nutrition-related matters, including the
presence or absence of SAM-e in the Defendant's dietary
supplements. Accordingly, "because the Defendant has not advanced
any attack that truly calls into question Dr. Kalman's expert
qualifications," its argument that Dr. Kalman is not qualified to
provide opinions and testimony in the case is meritless.
B. Whether Dr. Kalman's Opinion is Reliable
Both Vitamins Because and aSquared seek to strike and exclude Dr.
Kalman's opinion and testimony as unreliable. The Defendants'
central argument is that, during his deposition, Dr. Kalman gave
testimony that contradicted his initial opinion that "ALL of the
SAM-e manufactured by Vitamins Because was deficient."
Additionally, they take issue with Dr. Kalman's methodology,
including by questioning the size and origin of the samples that
the Plaintiffs tested, attacking the facts and evidence upon which
he relied, and claiming that his conclusions ignored adverse data.
In sum, Judge Torres holds that Dr. Kalman's methodology satisfies
Daubert. The criticisms outlined in the Defendants' Motions are
more appropriate at trial and upon cross examination, as any such
objections go to the weight of the evidence rather than its
admissibility.
C. Dr. Kalman is Not Qualified to Offer Legal Opinions
Vitamins Because's motion also seeks to exclude Dr. Kalman's
assertions that Vitamins Because's SAM-e supplements violated FDA
regulations, and his opinions on what FDA regulations require. The
Plaintiffs did not respond to this claim. Because any opinion that
Vitamins Because violated FDA regulations is clearly a legal
conclusion which Dr. Kalman is not qualified to provide, the
Plaintiffs may not offer such testimony nor any other legal
conclusions through Dr. Kalman's testimony at trial.
D. Whether Dr. Kalman's Rebuttal Report is a Proper Rebuttal
Finally, Vitamins Because also moves to exclude Dr. Kalman's
rebuttal report on the grounds that: (i) the report includes
opinions and relies on materials that were, or could have been,
disclosed in his initial report; and (ii) those opinions directly
contradict his deposition testimony.
Judge Torres denies the Defendant's motion. He finds that the Court
has already addressed the Defendant's arguments regarding the
contradictions created by Dr. Klaman's deposition testimony, so he
will not repeat that analysis. A plain reading of Dr. Kalman's
report makes it clear that his rebuttal is used to respond to
Defendant aSquared's expert, Dr. Chevreau. In fact, Dr. Kalman's
rebuttal responds to Dr. Chevreau's critiques point by point,
including (i) whether SAM-e is truly an unstable chemical, (ii)
whether Plaintiffs tested a representative sample of Defendant's
supplements, (iii) whether Plaintiffs' testing was consistent, and
(vi) whether the tested supplements were indeed manufactured by the
Defendant.
The fact that Dr. Kalman's rebuttal cites to the deposition
transcripts of Defendant's 30(b)(6) witness, Thomas Chapman, and
founder, Cynthia C. Valenca, does not detract from this reality,
for their testimony related to Dr. Kalman's points of rebuttal.
Judge Torres therefore concludes that Dr. Kalman's expert report
constitutes a bona-fide rebuttal report.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Torres denied the Defendants'
motions to exclude and strike the opinions and testimony of the
Plaintiff's expert, and to strike his rebuttal report. Furthermore,
he granted in part and denied in part Vitamins Because's motion to
strike the Plaintiff's expert.
The Defendant's motion to exclude all legal conclusions from Dr.
Kalman's testimony is granted. The Plaintiffs may not offer legal
conclusions through Dr. Kalman's testimony at trial. In all other
respects, Vitamins Because's motion is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Omnibus Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/294havv4 from Leagle.com.
VMC-CPT KFORCE: Whiteman Seeks to Certify Class of Recruiters
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAM WHITEMAN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. VMC-CPT KFORCE INC., Case
No. 8:22-cv-00056-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective;
2. approving his proposed Notice and distribution plan; and
3. requiring Defendant Kforce Inc. to produce the collective
member data.
Mr. Whiteman, a former Kforce Recruiter, alleges that Kforce
uniformly misclassified its Recruiters as exempt from overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
and he requests Court approval to send notice of this action to a
nationwide class of exempt-classified Recruiters who worked for
Kforce since May 11, 2018, and who did not sign an arbitration
agreement.
Kforce is a nationwide staffing agency that employs Recruiters to
search employment databases to find potential job candidates whose
credentials match the job qualifications set by Kforce's clients.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sh7X8b
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Ben K. Schott, Esq.
Michael Tresnowski, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
bschott@flsalaw.com
mtresnowski@flsalaw.com
- and -
Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 S. Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 244-7005
Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
kaburgy@nicholllaw.com
W.E.K. ENTERPRISES: Nelson Files Second Bid for Conditional Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL NELSON On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. W.E.K. ENTERPRISES,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00895-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting his unopposed second motion
for conditional certification and enter an order as follows:
1. The following classes are conditionally certified:
A. The FLSA Conditional Class -- Individuals employed by
Defendant who, in any week during the period December
15, 2018, through October 29, 2020, (I) performed
flagger, crew chief, or similar job duties; (ii) were
paid on an hourly basis; (iii) performed off-the-clock
unpaid work duties; and (iv) were not paid by the
Defendant at the FLSA required time-and-one-half rate
for all overtime worked over 40 hours.
B. The VWPA Conditional Class -- Individuals employed by
Defendant who, in any week during the period July 1,
2020, through October 29, 2020, (i) performed flagger,
crew chief, or similar job duties; (ii) were paid on an
hourly basis; (iii) performed off-the-clock unpaid work
duties; and (iv) were not paid by Defendant for all
compensable non-overtime (less than 40) duties
performed.
2. Defendant shall produce the names, job titles, dates of
employment, locations of employment, last known addresses,
cellular phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for each
class member in an electronic form that can be used by
Plaintiff for mailing and/or e-mailing and/or text
messaging out the Court-approved Notice within 21 calendar
days of the entry of this Order;
3. The Court authorizes the Notice and Consent Form included
with Plaintiff's Motion to be immediately issued to all
class members by first class mail (with self-addressed and
stamped return envelopes), at Plaintiff's expense, and by
e-mail, at Plaintiff’s expense;
4. The Court authorizes the Reminder Notice included with
Plaintiff’s Motion be served to all class members as a
reminder by email, text message, and/or first class mail
not sooner than 30 days after service of the initial
Notice, at Plaintiff's expense; and
5. The class members shall be provided a window to opt into
this action of up to 60 days after the initial mailing, e-
mailing, and texting of the Notices and Consent Forms.
The Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages and statutory damages
for himself and other similarly situated individuals under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Virginia Wage
Payment Act Virginia Code (VWPA).
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that for the relevant recovery
period through October 29, 2020, the date Area Wide Protective,
Inc. purchased Defendant’s assets, the Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals for (i)
compensable pre-and post-shift work; (ii) compensable travel time;
(iii) compensable time worked during improperly and automatically
deducted 30-minute fictional lunch breaks; and (iv) all
compensation due and owing at the required time-and-one-half
overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 per week. The Defendant
denies these allegations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vMolOL
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
- and -
Francisco Mundaca, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
Nicole Portnov, Esq.
THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
3601 Eisenhower Ave, Suite 425
Alexandria, VA 22304
Telephone: (202) 449-8527
Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
E-Mail: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com
rtucci@spigglelaw.com
nportnov@spigglelaw.com
W.M.E RESTAURANT: Olivares Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Flores Olivares and Gabriela Ortiz, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. W.M.E RESTAURANT CORP (D/B/A
EL POLLO RESTAURANT II), WILLIAM BARRANTES, and MIRIAM PERALTA,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02312 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022), is brought for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and
the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a chicken restaurant
located in Staten Island, New York under the name "El Pollo
Restaurant II."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
WALGREEN CO: Theda Jackson-Mau Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THEDA JACKSON-MAU, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN
CO. and INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORP., Case No. 1:18-cv-04868-FB-TAM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Walgreen is an American company that operates the second-largest
pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS Health.
IVC manufactures and distributes vitamins and related health
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37Qie43
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
pblack@wolfpopper.com
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Gray Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rebecca Gray, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.,
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc., Case No. 2022-CH-02148 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02090 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. -- https://www.wm.com/ -- is the
leading provider of comprehensive waste management, offering
services such as garbage collection and disposal, recycling and
dumpster renta.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Email: cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles E. Reis, IV, Esq.
Lillian T. Manning, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 659-2002
Email: creis@littler.com
lmanning@littler.com
WATERFORD HOTEL: Paquin FLSA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXANDRA PAQUIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WATERFORD HOTEL GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2280-CV-00041, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Massachusetts, Hampshire County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on April 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-30050 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Waterford Hotel Group, LLC is a hospitality management company
based in Waterford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael P. Lewis, Esq.
FORD HARRISON LLP
CityPlace II
185 Asylum Street, Suite 610
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 740-1359
Facsimile: (860) 740-1349
E-mail: mplewis@fordharrison.com
- and –
Michael J. Spagnola, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
CityPlace II
185 Asylum Street, Suite 610
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 740-1364
Facsimile: (860) 740-1349
E-mail: mspagnola@fordharrison.com
- and –
Craig Dickinson, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
CityPlace II
185 Asylum Street, Suite 610
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 740-1371
Facsimile: (860) 740-1349
E-mail: cdickinson@fordharrison.com
WAWA INC: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. 19-6019 and all related cases (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene
E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania grants final approval of certain parties' settlement
agreement, the attorneys' fees, and the class representative
awards.
I. Background
Wawa's payment card system suffered a data breach in December 2019.
Class action litigation ensued when the data breach spawned
multiple lawsuits, which the Court consolidated into one action
with three tracks: financial institutions, employees, and
consumers. The consolidated complaint asserts claims again Wawa
based on negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection and
data privacy laws.
The Consumer Track Plaintiffs filed claims based on the compromise
of their payment card information. After targeted initial
discovery, Wawa and the Consumer Track Plaintiffs reached a
proposed settlement in September 2020.
The Proposed Settlement Class, estimated at 22 million class
members, includes U.S. residents who used a payment card at a Wawa
convenience store location between March and December 2019. Six
settlement class members have opted out.
The Settlement Agreement provides for three tiers of relief among
the class members:
a. Tier I - $5 Wawa Gift Card. This is available to customers
who used a debit or credit card to make a purchase at Wawa between
March 4, 2019 and December 12, 2019 and who attest that they spent
at least some time monitoring their credit card. Total Tier I
compensation is subject to a $6 million cap and a $1 million
floor.
b. Tier II - $15 Wawa Gift Card. This is available to
customers who used a payment card at Wawa during the relevant time
period, had a subsequent fraudulent charge on their card, and spent
at least some time addressing the fraudulent transaction or
otherwise monitoring their account. Total Tier H compensation is
subject to a $2 million cap and no floor.
c. Tier III - Cash payments up to $500. This is available to
customers who can demonstrate certain expenditures or other
out-of-pocket losses resulting from the data breach. Total Tier III
compensation is subject to a $1 million cap and no floor.
The Settlement Agreement also includes injunctive relief
provisions. These will require Wawa to strengthen its data security
systems as well as its in-store and fuel dispenser payment
terminals to prevent future data breaches. Other enhancements will
include an annual compliance audit and vulnerability testing. The
upgraded systems and other security measures are valued
approximately $35 million.
The settlement notice program included signage at all Wawa cash
registers and fuel pumps, an announcement on Wawa's website, a
nationwide press release, and a dedicated settlement website and
toll-free automated phone line administered by the Claims
Administrator. The Claims Administrator is K.CC LLC. In order to
maximize notice, the parties also reached an agreement for Wawa to
keep the signs up for "several more weeks beyond the initial four
week period," issue a second press release on September 30, 2021,
include a video message on all Wawa fuel pumps equipped with video
screens, send reminders to in-store employees about the sign
placement, and increase the prominence of the settlement
announcement's placement. The press releases have already received
considerable publicity, including features in the Philadelphia
Inquirer, Philly Voice, and NJ coin, as well as several other local
news stations. Wawa asserts that the press release received over
136 million views, which grows to 235 million media impressions
from overall press coverage of the settlement.
As of Dec. 21, 2021, the settlement website had received visits
from 258,902 users and the toll-free phone number had received
1,367 calls. Wawa also notes that foot traffic through Wawa stores
during the time period in which notices were posted greatly
exceeded its preliminary estimate: There were 130,312,639
transactions during the period when the signs were displayed, which
is more than double the original estimate of 64 million asserted at
the preliminary approval stage (and far exceeds the 22 million
class members).
The Settlement Agreement has been amended to: (1) verify that the
gift cards will not expire; (2) eliminate a fee reversion such that
any difference in attorneys' fees requested versus attorneys' fees
awarded would be redistributed to Tier One and Tier Two gift card
holders; and (3) grant automatic eligibility for Tier One gift
cards to Wawa app users with valid email addresses. KCC determined
that 556,271 app users were eligible to automatically receive the
Tier One gift card.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July
30, 2021, pending a fairness hearing, which was held on Jan. 26,
2022. The Consumer Track Plaintiffs now seek the Court's final
approval of the Consumer Track class action settlement agreement,
as well as approval of requested attorneys' fees and Class
Representative awards.
The Consumer Track Plaintiffs also filed a motion for attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses, and the Class Representative awards. The
class counsel seek a lump sum award of $3.2 million separate from
the $9 million made available to the class, which includes
$3,040,060 in attorneys' fees, $45,940 in litigation expenses,
approximately $100,000 in settlement administration fees, and
$14,000 in the Class Representative awards.
Two sets of objectors appeared at the fairness hearing. First, the
Employee Track Plaintiffs object to the inclusion of employees in
the settlement in their capacities as consumers. Second, an
individual named Theodore H. Frank initially objected to settlement
approval and the request for attorneys' fees, but has since
withdrawn the portion of his objection relating to settlement
approval after the amendments to the Settlement Agreement. Mr.
Frank continues to maintain his objection to the requested
attorneys' fees, arguing that the amount is disproportionately high
as compared to the benefits obtained by the class.
After the fairness hearing, the settlement administrator submitted
final claims numbers on April 8, 2022.
II. Discussion
A. Class Certification
As the Court previously noted at the provisional certification
stage for settlement purposes, common questions of both law and
fact include: whether Wawa owed a duty to the class members to
safeguard their payment card information; whether Wawa breached
that duty; whether Wawa violated state consumer protection laws;
whether Wawa knew or should have known that its payment processing
systems were susceptible to attack; whether Wawa complied with
industry standards; and whether Wawa's conduct or failure to act
was the proximate cause of the breach. The Court finds that common
issues predominate in the case. Therefore, Judge Pratter finds that
class certification for settlement is proper.
B. Settlement Approval
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter now turns to the Consumer Track Plaintiffs'
motion for final settlement approval. The Third Circuit Court of
Appeals has established nine "Girsh factors" to assess the fairness
of a proposed settlement: (1) the complexity, expense and likely
duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the
settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5)
the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the
class action through trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to
withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of
the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9)
the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible
recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has also identified additional
non-exclusive "Prudential factors" for courts to consider for a
"thoroughgoing analysis of settlement terms," citing In re Pet Food
Prods. Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333, 350 (3d Cir. 2010). Those
factors include: [1] the maturity of the underlying substantive
issues, as measured by experience in adjudicating individual
actions, the development of scientific knowledge, the extent of
discovery on the merits, and other factors that bear on the ability
to assess the probable outcome of a trial on the merits of
liability and individual damages; [2] the existence and probable
outcome of claims by other classes and subclasses; [3] the
comparison between the results achieved by the settlement for
individual class or subclass members and the results achieved -- or
likely to be achieved -- for other claimants; [4] whether class or
subclass members are accorded the right to opt out of the
settlement; [5] whether any provisions for attorneys' fees are
reasonable; and [6] whether the procedure for processing individual
claims under the settlement is fair and reasonable.
Balancing the Girsch factors and the relevant Prudential factors,
Judge Pratter finds that the proposed Consumer Track settlement is
fair and reasonable. Therefore, she approves the proposed
settlement.
C. Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses
The Class Counsel seek attorneys' fees of $3,040,060, litigation
expenses of $45,940, and "approximately" $100,000 for KCC's
settlement administration expenses. The Settlement Agreement sets
the $3.2 million lump sum amount for fees, expenses, and class
representative service awards to be paid by Wawa separate from, and
in addition to, the $9 million made available to consumers.
In common fund settlements, courts in the Third Circuit also apply
the following "Gunter factors" to assess if this amount is
reasonable: "(1) the size of the fund created and the number of
persons benefitted; (2) the presence or absence of substantial
objections by members of the class to the settlement terms and/or
fees requested by counsel; (3) the skill and efficiency of the
attorneys involved; (4) the complexity and duration of the
litigation; (5) the risk of nonpayment; (6) the amount of time
devoted to the case by plaintiffs' counsel; and (7) the awards in
similar cases."
Based on the Gunter factors and the lodestar cross-check, Judge
Pratter grants the motion for attorneys' fees of $3,040,060 as part
of the $3.2 million lump sum payment. The request for $45,940 in
litigation expenses and $100,000 for the settlement administrator
also compares favorably to other data breach settlements. Judge
Pratter finds that the requested litigation expenses are
reasonable.
D. Class Representative Awards
The Plaintiffs also request awards of $1,000 each for 14 named
Class Representatives.
Judge Pratter holds that although the number of class
representatives (14) is somewhat high relative to other types of
cases, the class representatives reflect the interstate nature of
the class of Wawa consumers and data breach class action litigation
in general. At the hearing, the Class Counsel explained that they
sought two representatives in each state where Wawa conducted
business in order to address potential standing issues. Relative to
other data security litigation, the total amount of $14,000 in
service awards to 14 class representatives is low. Therefore, Judge
Pratter approves the requested expenses and class representative
awards.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pratter grants final approval of
the Consumer Track Settlement Agreement and the requested
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and the Class Representative
awards. An appropriate order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3ykmx4 from Leagle.com.
WAWA INC: Court Issues Final Order in Data Security Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania entered a Final Order in the case, IN RE
WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 19-6019 and
all related cases (E.D. Pa.).
Judge Pratter granted the Consumer Track Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement is granted.
The Final Order incorporates the Settlement Agreement and the
Preliminary Approval Order. The terms defined in the Settlement
Agreement and Preliminary Approval Order will have the same
meanings for purposes of the Final Order.
Judge Pratter held a Fairness Hearing on Jan. 26, 2022. She
approved the Parties' plan to distribute the Class Settlement Fund
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
The Parties are directed to implement and consummate the
Settlement, as set forth in the terms and provisions of the
Settlement Agreement.
Within three calendar days following the issuance of all settlement
payments to the Class Members, the Settlement Administrator will
prepare and provide to the Class Counsel and the Defense Counsel a
list of each person who was issued a settlement payment and the
amount of such payment.
Without Further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to
reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the
provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Likewise, the Parties may,
without further order of the Court or notice to the Settlement
Class, agree to and adopt such amendments to the Settlement
Agreement as are consistent with the Final Order and the Final
Judgment and that do not limit the rights of Settlement Class
Members under the Settlement Agreement.
Within the timeframe contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, Wawa
will make a deposit into the Qualified Settlement Fund as provided
for in Paragraph 5.5 of the Settlement Agreement.
Upon entry of the Order, all the Class Members will he bound by the
Settlement Agreement (including any amendments) and by the Final
Order.
The Consumer Track Action is dismissed with prejudice without costs
to any party, except as otherwise provided in the Final Order or in
the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Pratter granted the Consumer Track Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards.
Berger Montague PC, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith
LLP, Fine, Kaplan & Black RPC, and Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., as the
Consumer Track Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, and pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, are awarded a lump sum of $3.2 million for
attorneys' fees, expenses, costs of settlement administration, and
class representative awards to be paid by Wawa in accordance with
the Settlement Agreement.
The Class Counsel will have the discretion to allocate the
attorneys' fees and expenses among themselves and other plaintiffs'
counsel that performed common benefit work in the Consumer Track
action, as set forth in paragraph 80 of the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Prattert confirmed the appointment of Kenneth Brulinski,
Kelly Donnelly Bruno, Amanda Garthwaite, Marisa Graziano, Tracey
Lucas, Marcus McDaniel, Joseph Muller, April Pierce, Nicole
Portnoy, Nakia Rolling, Eric Russell, Michael Sussman, Charmissha
Tingle, and Kasan Laster as the Settlement Class Representatives.
The Settlement Class Representatives are each awarded a service
award in the amount of $1,000, to be paid by Wawa of the $3.2
million lump sum in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p923twy from Leagle.com.
WEST VIRGINIA: Writ of Prohibition Bid in Whittington Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. DODRILL HEATING AND
COOLING, LLC, Defendant, Petitioner v. THE HONORABLE MARYCLAIRE
AKERS, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY; AND JERRY AND
PAMELA WHITTINGTON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, Respondents, Case No.
21-0561 (W. Va.), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
denied Dodrill's requested writ of prohibition seeking to dismiss
the Whittingtons' claims for lack of standing.
I. Introduction
Respondents Jerry and Pamela Whittington purchased an HVAC unit
from Petitioner Dodrill Heating and Cooling LL, and later sued
Dodrill when they had issues with the unit. Eventually, the circuit
court certified a class action based on the Whittingtons' claim
that language in the documents used by Dodrill violated the West
Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act (WVCCPA), West Virginia
Code Section 46A-2-127(g).
Dodrill seeks a writ of prohibition challenging the class
certification on two grounds. First, Dodrill contends that the
Whittingtons lack standing because the challenged language is no
more than a threat and was never acted upon, so it is not
actionable as an injury-in-fact.
Second, Dodrill seeks to prohibit certification of a class of
individuals who also received documents from Dodrill containing the
language that purportedly violates the WVCCPA. Dodrill contends
that the circuit court's order does not sufficiently analyze the
predominance and superiority factors of Rule 23(b)(3) of the West
Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure as thoroughly as the Supreme
Court deemed necessary in its recent opinion in State ex rel.
Surnaik Holdings of West Virginia, LLC v. Bedell.
II. Background
Respondents Jerry and Pamela Whittington, like the class they
propose to represent, purchased an HVAC unit from Dodrill. The
written proposal for installation the Whittingtons received from
Dodrill quoted a total price of $11,995 and noted that "buyer
agrees to any reasonable attorney or collection fees incurred by
seller in securing payment for this contract." Dodrill facilitated
the Whittingtons' finance of the purchase through Greensky, LLC.
The Whittingtons allege that they had repeated issues with the HVAC
unit, requiring Dodrill to return to their home to service the unit
several times. Each time Dodrill returned to work on the unit, the
written work orders provided to the Whittingtons contained the
language "in the event that collection efforts are initiated
against me, I will pay for all associated fees at the posted rates
as well as all collection fees and reasonable attorney fees." The
Whittingtons ultimately requested that Dodrill remove the unit and
issue a full refund.
When the Whittingtons filed suit against Dodrill, they alleged
negligence and violations of West Virginia Code Section
46A-6-102(7) and West Virginia Code Section 46A-6-104 for the
omission of material terms required by the Home Improvement Rule3
and misrepresentation and breach of warranty under the WVCCPA. The
Whittingtons then sought and were granted leave to file an amended
complaint converting the case to a putative class action.
The amended complaint added the claim that Dodrill had violated
West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-127(g) by including language in
the proposal/agreement and subsequent work orders that they would
be subject to pay Dodrill's attorney fees and sought class-wide
relief for all individuals who had received the same
proposal/agreement and work orders containing that language. After
a hearing on class certification on December 15, 2020, the circuit
court entered an order certifying the class on June 17, 2021.
Dodrill filed the instant petition for writ of prohibition seeking
to preclude certification of the class.
III. Analysis
As noted, Dodrill seeks a writ of prohibition on two separate
issues. First, Dodrill contends that the Whittingtons lack standing
because they have only produced evidence of a "threat" to add
attorney fees but have not incurred actual harm from Dodrill since
the Whittingtons financed their HVAC through a third-party and
Dodrill never attempted to collect a debt from the Whittingtons.
Second, Dodrill challenges the circuit court's order certifying the
class as non-compliant with the analysis required under Rule 23 of
the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.
A. Standing
Standing has been further refined as follows: Standing is comprised
of three elements: First, the party attempting to establish
standing must have suffered an injury-in-fact -- an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized
and (b) actual or imminent and not conjectural or hypothetical.
Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and
the conduct forming the basis of the lawsuit. Third, it must be
likely that the injury will be redressed through a favorable
decision of the court.
Dodrill contends that the Whittingtons cannot establish the first
element of standing since they have suffered no injury-in-fact
resulting from the language in the proposal/agreement and
subsequent work order invoices.
The Supreme Court holds that Dodrill's "no-harm, no foul" argument
is unavailing. It holds that the injury-in-fact (the representation
in purported violation of the WVCCPA) is likewise particularized to
the Whittingtons; there can be no valid argument that the
representations were not made to the Whittingtons when there is no
dispute that the documents containing those representations were
given directly to them.
Whether Dodrill was attempting to collect a debt and qualifies as a
"debt collector" goes to the merits of the Whittingtons' claims,
not their standing to bring suit in seeking relief: "the focus of a
standing analysis is not on the validity of the claim but instead
is 'on the appropriateness of a party bringing the questioned
controversy to the court.'" Discovery will tell whether the
Whittingtons and, if certified, the class at large, have
successfully made out their claim under the WVCCPA that Dodrill was
(1) a debt collector and (2) attempting to collect a debt, but
Dodrill's arguments are suited for a motion for summary judgment,
not a standing challenge. We therefore conclude that the
Whittingtons have established standing to bring this suit and
refuse Dodrill's petition for a writ of prohibition on that
ground.
B. Class certification
Dodrill petitions for a writ of prohibition on the independent
ground that the circuit court failed to undertake the necessary
analysis of Rule 23(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil
Procedure in granting class certification. Specifically, it
contends that the circuit court's analysis of the predominance and
superiority factors falls short of the requirements discussed in
Surnaik.
The Supreme Court holds that the conclusions made in the circuit
court's order with respect to predominance and superiority cannot
pass muster under the standards articulated in Surnaik, and, in
fact, are more conclusory than the analysis conducted in that case.
Because "a circuit court's failure to conduct a thorough analysis
of the requirements for class certification pursuant to West
Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and/or 23(b) amounts to
clear error," the Supreme Court must grant the writ of prohibition
with respect to class certification. But it does not -- as Dodrill
requests -- vacate the order and require denial of class
certification upon remand by concluding that the class cannot meet
the predominance and superiority requirements. It simply grants the
writ of prohibition and direct the circuit court to undertake a
more thorough analysis of those two factors under Rule 23(b)(3) to
ensure class resolution is the appropriate method to adjudicate
these claims.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons it set forth, the Supreme Court denied Dodrill's
requested writ of prohibition seeking to dismiss the Whittingtons'
claims for lack of standing. However, it agreed that the June 21,
2021 order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granting class
certification requires more analysis under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure and granted the writ of
prohibition as moulded.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mw33puse from Leagle.com.
Camille E. Shora, Esq. -- camille.shora@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson,
Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, in McLean, Virginia,
Counsel for the Petitioner.
Matthew Stonestreet, Esq., Troy Giatras, Esq., The Giatras Law
Firm, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for the
Respondents.
WESTERN FUNDING: Gentles Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Gentles, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. WESTERN FUNDING INCORPORATED LLC, Case No.
CACE-22-005894 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April
22, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for violating the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The Defendant sent multiple electronic communications to the
Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt.
Each of the Electronic Communications were sent to Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of the
Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to
communication with Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00
AM. As such, by and through each of the Electronic Communications,
the Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida.
The Defendant is a/an Nevada Limited Liability Company, with its
principal place of business located in Las Vegas Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
Fax: 855-529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
WILSON LOGISTICS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moore v. Wilson Logistics,
Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-03212 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth
Phillips entered an order that motion for class certification is
due May 16, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Wilson is a family-owned trucking company founded in 1980 in
Springfield, Missouri.[CC]
WILSON SPORTING: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilson Sporting Goods
Co. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wilson Sporting Goods
Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-03307 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Wilson Sporting Goods Company -- https://www.wilson.com/en-us
-- is an American sports equipment manufacturer based in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
WISCONSIN: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALE PESHEK, HUNG TRAN,
and BRIAN THRELKELD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. KAREN TIMBERLAKE, in her official capacity as the
Secretary the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Case No.
21-CV-1061 (E.D. Wisc.), the Defendant ask the Court to enter an
order staying briefing on, and considering, the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification until it issues a decision on Timberlake's
fully-briefed motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs Dale Peshek and Brian Threlkeld are sex offenders
civilly committed under chapter 980 of the Wisconsin Statutes. They
challenge the constitutionality of provisions in Wis. Stat. section
980.08 that impose conditions on where they can live if they are
granted supervised release.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the statute violates their
due process and equal protection rights and an injunction against
Timberlake from enforcing the statute.
Timberlake filed a motion to dismiss the petition on multiple
grounds. First, she argued that this Court must abstain from
exercising jurisdiction under the doctrine set forth Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–46 (1971), because the Plaintiffs each
have ongoing state court chapter 980 cases addressing their
commitment, supervised release, and discharge. Second, Timberlake
argued that the Eleventh Amendment deprives this Court of
jurisdiction because Timberlake does not have any connection to the
enforcement of the housing restrictions that Plaintiffs challenge,
and that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because Timberlake
neither caused nor can redress the challenged provisions. And
finally, Timberlake argued that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
because they do not have any constitutionally protected interest in
supervised release.
The Department of Health Services protects and promotes the health
and safety of all people of Wisconsin.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 11, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kfYBoD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua L. Kaul, Esq.
Karla Z. Keckhaver, Esq.
Michael D. Morris, Esq.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Post Office Box 7857
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857
Telephone: (608) 264-6365
Facsimile: (608) 266-3936
E-mail: keckhaverkz@doj.state.wi.us
morrismd@doj.state.wi.us
WORLDWIDE OILFIELD: Jones Sues to Recover Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Jacob Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WORLDWIDE OILFIELD MACHINE, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-01296 (S.D. Tex., April 22, 2022), is brought to recover
back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees "for a workweek longer than 40
hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in
excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate at which they were or are employed." The Defendant
willfully violated the FLSA because it knew or showed a reckless
disregard for whether its pay practices were unlawful, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a subsea supervisor.
WOM is "a vertically integrated, multinational oilfield equipment
manufacturer specializing in custom solutions for the drilling,
testing, production and intervention segments of the oil and gas
industry."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street | Suite 1110
Houston, TX 77002-1055
Phone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
*********
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 ***