/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220504.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 4, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 83
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Cavada Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Firefighters' Exposed to Toxic Products, Howard Says
3M COMPANY: Gonzalez Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McGregor Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ALEXION PHARMA: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal
AMAZON.COM INC: McCarthy Sues Over Deceptive Prime Membership
AMERICAN LANDMARK: Diez Must File Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 21
ANADARKO E&P: Oral Argument on Class Certification Bid Sought
ANGIE'S LIST: Pro Water Solutions Seeks to Certify Two Classes
APPLE INC: Norfolk Pension Fund Suit Seek to Certify Class
BANCO POPULAR: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Golden Suit
BAY CITY, MI: LaDrigue Given Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint
BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces Anthony Shareholder Suit in NY Court
BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces Schneider Shareholder Suit in New York
BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces Shareholder Suits in NJ Court
BED BATH & BEYOND: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suit
BELIV LLC: Nectar Petit Brand Contains Preservatives, Suit Alleges
BLUE DIAMOND: Colpitts File Bid For Class Certification
BOSTON BEER: Faces Shareholder Suit in NY Court
BOSTON BEER: Settles Mislabeling Suit in CA Court
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA GM Collective
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Allowed to Appeal Arbitration Order
CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
CONTACTUS LLC: Amended Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Pyfrom
CRST INT'L: Supplemental Scheduling Order Modified in Cervantes
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Del Fierro Seeks to Certify Class Action
EDMUNDSON, MO: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Scheduling Order Amended in Johnson Suit
EXPERIAN INFO: Grabner Suit Remanded to Orange County Super. Court
FCA US: Bid to Appoint Kiesel Law as Co-Trial Counsel Nixed
FEDERAL HOUSING: Seeks Summary Judgment v. Fairholme Funds
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Scheduling Order Entered in Owens Class Suit
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Ionita Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FRONT LINE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Chaffer Suit Alleges
GREEN DOT: May 17 Extension to Complete Discovery Sought
GT MARKETING: Pastore Suit Seeks to Amend Scheduling Order
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suits in CA Court
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Port Angeles Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Sedro-Woolley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Hoquiam School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Marshall Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads for Youth
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Crisis Among Youth, Oakville Says
JUUL LABS: Yakima Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Wash.
KENTUCKY: Denial of Judgment Bid in Conn v. Parole Board Affirmed
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dix Sues Over Sale of Defective CPAP Devices
KROGER COMPANY: Schell Seeks Withdrawal of Class Certification Bid
LEVI STRAUSS: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Rankine Says
LINCOLN COUNTY, OR: Barnett Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Allegra Seeks Approval of Class Notice
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hall, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
MATERION BRUSH: Lucyk Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective
MC PAINTING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Sanchez Suit Affirmed
MDL 2179: Court Transfers Law Suit to E.D. La.
MDL 2804: Transfer of City of Holly and Taylor Suits Denied
MDL 3014: Transfer of SoClean Action to Philips Litigation Denied
MDL 3021: SoClean Action Consolidated in SoClean Litigation
MDL 3024: Court Denies Transfer of 4 Suits to C.D. Cal.
MDL 3026: 16 Suits Transferred to N.D. Ill.
MDL 3027: Panel Denies Move to Centralize Litigation of 2 Suits
MISSISSIPPI: Court Dismisses Rucker v. MDOC Without Leave to Amend
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Hatch Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
NATIONAL CHECK: Dienno Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
NBT BANK: Court Grants Prelim. Approval to Lowe's Class Settlement
NEW SABINA: Cowman Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
NEW YORK, NY: Court Approves Class Notice in Nnebe v. Daus
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: 2nd Amended Sched Order Vacated in Bennett
PHARM-SAVE INC: Savidge, et al., File Class Certification Bid
QUANTUM HEALTH: Scheduling Order Entered in Tracy Class Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Consolidated ERISA Suit in NJ Court
RADIUS GLOBAL: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Okten Suit
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Doyle, Filbert & Laborers Suits Consolidated
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wespath Named Lead Plaintiff in Doyle Suit
REILY & COMPANY: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Ortega Suit
RELIANT HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cooper Suit Alleges
SALAS CONCRETE: Final Hearing of Cavazos Settlement Still on May 23
SAMBUCA HOUSTON: McLemore Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Faces Davis Civil Rights Suit Over Discrimination
SPOKEO INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Kellman's Class Complaint
SPORTS RESEARCH: Capaci Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
ST. LOUIS, MO: Bid for Leave to Amend Cody Suit Granted in Part
STRYTEN ENERGY: Rivera Files Bid for Conditional Certification
TAILING LLC: Hulac Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA, NJWHL & PMWA
TONAWANDA VALLEY: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Compton Says
TREGO/DUGAN AVIATION: Martinez Sues Over Illegal Labor Practices
TRI-COUNTY EQUIPMENT: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
TWO JINN: Medina Civil Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
UMG RECORDINGS: Harris, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
UNITED SERVICES: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought
UNITED SERVICES: Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid Extended
UNITED STATES: Faces Dunn Suit Over Student Loan Discharges
UNITED STATES: Northern District of Ohio Dismisses Morrison Suit
VIRGINIA: District Court Refuses to Certify Class in Lumumba Suit
VIVID SEATS: Dennard Sues Over Deceptive Scheme in Selling Tickets
WALMART INC: Powell, et al., Seek to Certify Class
WALTER BERRY: Court Tosses Smith Bid to Show Cause & TRO
WELLSPAN HEALTH: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
WHITE HOUSE: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, King Alleges
*********
3M COMPANY: Cavada Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CAVADA, 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.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01350-RMG (D.S.C., April 26, 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 chronic lymphocytic
leukemia, 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Firefighters' Exposed to Toxic Products, Howard Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HOWARD and DAWN HOWARD, his wife, 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.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50),
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01351-RMG (D.S.C., April 26, 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, wantonness,
and per quod claim.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff William Howard 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 Mr. Howard, 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, Mr. Howard was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with soft tissue sarcoma and
polycythemia vera, 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Gonzalez Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOE GONZALEZ, 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-01353-RMG
(D.S.C., April 26, 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: McGregor Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MCGREGOR, 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-01352-RMG
(D.S.C., April 26, 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 testicular 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
ALEXION PHARMA: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL, DAVID L. HALLAL, VIKAS
SINHA, DAVID BRENNAN, DAVID J. ANDERSON, LUDWIG N. HANTSON, and
CARSTEN THIEL, Case No. 3:16-cv-02127-AWT (D. Conn.), the
Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting them leave to
file under seal Exhibits 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 23 to their
Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification.
The Defendants have also applied narrow redactions to their
publicly-filed Memorandum of Law in support of their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in order to exclude the
material designated Confidential by plaintiffs or third parties
contained in the documents and testimony, and accordingly request
leave to file under seal an unredacted version of said Memorandum
of Law as well.
The referenced exhibits consist of documents produced by plaintiffs
or third parties, or testimony given by third parties, designated
as Confidential reflecting their position that the documents
contain "(a) trade secrets, (b) proprietary business information,
or (c) information implicating an individual's legitimate
expectation of privacy" in accordance with the Protective Order
entered by this Court on December 29, 2016.
Alexion, a subsidiary of AstraZeneca, is an American pharmaceutical
company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts that specializes in
orphan drugs to treat rare diseases.
A copy of Defendant's motion dated April 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vpX1qG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jane B. O'Brien, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7327
E-mail: jobrien@paulweiss.com
- and -
Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
Audra S. Soloway, Esq.
Jonathan Hurwitz, Esq.
Tamar Holoshitz, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com
asoloway@paulweiss.com
jhurwitz@paulweiss.com
tholoshitz@paulweiss.com
- and -
David A. Ring, Esq.
Robyn E. Gallagher, Esq.
WIGGIN & DANA
265 Church Street
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (860) 297-3703
E-mail: dring@wiggin.com
rgallagher@wiggin.com
AMAZON.COM INC: McCarthy Sues Over Deceptive Prime Membership
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy McCarthy individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02384 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 26, 2022) alleges that Amazon surreptitiously enrolls its
Prime members in a paid subscription to Audible through a process
that deceives reasonable consumers, charging the consumers credit
or debit cards without their permission or authority, resulting
many Prime members pay monthly subscription fees for Audible
services that they never asked for and/or ever used, in violation
of New York's General Business Law.
Amazon Prime membership ("Prime membership") costs approximately
$119 per year. According to Amazon, its Prime membership confers
many shipping, shopping, streaming, reading, and other benefits.
See https://www.amazon.com/
primeinsider/about?ref=primenav_benefits.
One of the "benefits" included in a Prime membership is "Free
Titles at Audible. " Audible is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Amazon. Unfortunately for consumers, Prime membership does not
actually include Audible for "free." Rather, Amazon charges
consumers for Audible for a monthly, recurring fee.
Allegedly, Amazon also makes it exceedingly difficult for its Prime
members to discontinue the Audible service once a consumer
discovers the improper charges. Amazon then limits refunds of those
monthly subscription fees to its Prime members to only a few months
of charges, refusing to refund all the money that was improperly
taken.
The Plaintiff purchased a Prime membership within her district for
her personal use. The Plaintiff was charged, without her knowledge
or approval, $14.95 per month for Audible for a total of
approximately $448.50.
Prime members must provide to Amazon a payment method to be
maintained on file in the member's "Wallet." Payment methods
include credit cards, debit cards, and personal checking accounts.
One payment method must be selected as the member's "default"
payment method, and that default method allows Amazon to charge
that method for any digital purchases, including Audible
subscriptions.
Amazon promotes its Audible services on its Amazon website, app,
and on its Kindle platforms. Prime members, in particular, are
targeted for enrollment in a subscription to Audible through a
process that is not clear to members. Many Prime members have no
idea that Audible is not free with their Prime membership and
inadvertently enroll in a paid subscription to Audible. Other Prime
members have no idea how they were signed up for Audible until they
later see Audible's monthly charges.
Audible membership is not adequately disclosed to the Prime
members. For example, if a Prime member inadvertently enrolls in
Audible, the Prime member does not receive any conspicuous
materials from Audible by email confirming enrollment and then
notifying of monthly charges. In other instances, Prime members
unsubscribe, yet continue to be charged across the various payment
methods in the Prime members' "Wallet."
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of:
All persons in New York were charged for Audible services from
April 26, 2019 to the date of judgment.
Excluded from the Class are officers and directors of
Defendant,
members of the immediate families of the officers and directors
of Defendant, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors
or assigns and any entity in which they have or have had a
controlling interest
The Plaintiff and other Class Members have been injured inasmuch as
they were charged for Audible. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and other
Class Members were injured in that they were charged for a service
that was advertised as "free".
As a result of Defendant's alleged recurring deceptive acts and
practices, Plaintiff and other Class Members are entitled to
monetary and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution
and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Defendant's
unlawful conduct, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Amazon is a vast internet-based enterprise that provides goods and
services with respect to e-commerce, logistics, payment, hardware,
data storage, and media, among other businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93 rd Street, 16 th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
cmoore@reesellp.com
AMERICAN LANDMARK: Diez Must File Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARA DIEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
LANDMARK, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20189-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order setting the following
briefing schedule:
Event Deadline
-- The Plaintiff shall file Sept. 21, 2022
her Motion for Class
Certification by:
-- The Defendant shall file 30 days after the
its Response to Plaintiff's filing of the Motion
Motion for Class
Certification by:
-- The Plaintiff shall file her 14 days after
Reply in Support of Plaintiff's the filing
Motion for Class Certification by: of the Response
American Landmark is a national multifamily owner-operator
specializing in multifamily acquisition, repositioning and property
management.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KqsyNl
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
ANADARKO E&P: Oral Argument on Class Certification Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC; C C
OPEN A, LLC; and GUEST FAMILY TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F.
GUEST, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC; ANADARKO LAND
CORPORATION; and KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Case No.
1:20-cv-02352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order allowing an oral argument regarding Plaintiffs'
pending Motion for Class Certification.
The issue of whether class certification is appropriate is
contested. Both parties would appreciate an opportunity to answer
questions and present argument or explanation. The parties estimate
that such hearing would require one half day to one full day of the
Court's time.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38CFUcg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
Gregory M. Bentz, Esq.
Charles T. Schimmel, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
lwalsh@midwest-law.com
sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
gbentz@midwest-law.com
cschimmel@midwest-law.com
- and -
Lance Astrella, Esq.
ASTRELLA LAW, P.C.
1801 Broadway, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 292-9021
Facsimile: (303) 296-6347
E-mail: lance@astrellalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ezekiel J. Williams, Esq.
Carlos R. Romo, Esq.
Spencer R. Allen, Esq.
Jacqueline Hyatt, Esq.
WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON PC
1801 California Street, Suite 3400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-2828
Facsimile: (303) 861-4017
E-mail: zwilliams@williamsweese.com
cromo@williamsweese.com
sallen@williamsweese.com
jhyatt@williamsweese.com
- and -
Barrett H. Reasoner, Esq.
Anthony N. Kaim, Esq.
Shannon N. Smith, Esq.
GIBBS & BRUNS LLP
1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: 713-650-8805
Facsimile: 713-750-0903
E-mail: breasoner@gibbsbruns.com
akaim@gibbsbruns.com
snsmith@gibbsbruns.com
ANGIE'S LIST: Pro Water Solutions Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRO WATER SOLUTIONS, INC.,
a California corporation, individually and on behalf of itself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ANGIE'S LIST,
INC., a Delaware corporation; ANGI HOMESERVICES INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:19-cv-08704-ODW-SS
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the following defined class pursuant to subsections (a)
and (b)(3) of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
-- The California Class:
"Any persons, whether individuals or business entities,
that, at any time between September 6, 2015, through the
date judgment is rendered have registered as Service
Providers with Angie's List to advertise, or otherwise
promote their business using the Angie's List website and
are either based in or advertising with Defendants for
services to be performed in California;"
-- The California Homeadvisor Subclass:
"Any California Class Member that also contracted with
HomeAdvisor, Inc. to advertise or otherwise promote the
California Class Members' business with HomeAdvisor, Inc."
Pro Water Solutions sells, installs, and services water treatment
systems throughout Los Angeles.
Angie's List provides Internet information and content.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rZBaUZ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC
19360 Rinaldi Street, #647
Porter Ranch, California 91326
Telephone: (818) 360-2529
Facsimile: (866) 794-5741
E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com
APPLE INC: Norfolk Pension Fund Suit Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff and
Class Representative Norfolk County Council as Administering
Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund, ask the Court to enter an
order certifying a class of Apple call option buyers and Apple put
options sellers and modify the Class definition as follows:
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded securities of Apple Inc., including
purchasers of Apple Inc. call options and sellers of Apple
Inc. put options, during the period from November 2, 2018
through January 2, 2019, inclusive, and who suffered damages
by the defendants' alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act;"
Excluded from the class are (i) Apple and the individual
defendants; (ii) members of the families of each individual
defendant; (iii) officers and directors of Apple; and (iv)
the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of
any such excluded party.
The Plaintiff previously moved the Court to certify this securities
fraud action as a Class action on behalf of purchasers of Apple
common stock and options. Motion for Class Certification.
The Court granted the Motion for Class Certification with respect
to purchasers of Apple common stock, finding that the Plaintiff had
satisfied the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) prerequisites for
Class certification, including finding that Apple common stock
traded in an efficient market and that Plaintiff provided the Court
with a methodology that would allow for damages to be calculated on
a Class-wide basis.
Apple is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MDcARr
at no extra charge.[CC]
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff, are:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
Kenneth J. Black, Esq.
Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
kennyb@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Mark Solomon, Esq.
Tor Gronborg, Esq.
Jason A. Forge, Esq.
Raphaella Friedman, Esq.
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: marks@rgrdlaw.com
torg@rgrdlaw.com
jforge@rgrdlaw.com
rfriedman@rgrdlaw.com
Counsel for the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode
Island, are:
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 883-7524
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
Additional Counsel are:
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY,
P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
BANCO POPULAR: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Golden Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARNOLD GOLDEN, Plaintiff v. BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO
RICO, Defendant, Civil No. 2020-95 (D.V.I.), Magistrate Judge Ruth
Miller of the U.S. District Court for the District of Virgin
Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, denied Banco's motion
to stay discovery until its motion to dismiss for lack of standing
and for failure to state a claim is decided.
I. Background
Mr. Golden originally filed his class action complaint against
Banco, Popular, Inc., and Popular Bank in October of 2020, alleging
breach of contract and other causes of action in connection with
the charging of overdraft fees on checking accounts. Popular, Inc.
and Popular Bank moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, and on Nov. 23, 2020, Golden voluntarily dismissed
the action as against those two defendants.
On Jan. 4, 2021, Banco moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Alternatively, Banco moved
to strike a subclass of Virgin Islands consumers on the basis that
Golden, "a North Carolina resident, is not a member of the subclass
and therefore lacks standing to represent it." That motion, which
Golden opposes, is fully briefed.
On Aug. 6, 2021, Judge Miller scheduled a Rule 16 conference, and
on the parties' joint motion, rescheduled that conference for Oct.
4, 2021. On Sept.r 30, 2021, Banco filed the instant motion to stay
discovery. Notwithstanding that motion, the Court conducted the
Rule 16 conference and entered a Trial Management Order to govern
discovery.
On Jan. 6, 2022, at a status conference, the parties reported that
they were discussing and proceeding on a compromise consisting of
limited discovery with respect to plaintiff's account only, as well
as the formation of an ESI plan should the motion to dismiss not
result in disposition of the case. At the next status conference on
April 1, 2022, the parties indicated that a ruling on the motion to
stay was necessary because the motion to dismiss had not yet been
decided.
II. Discussion
A. Whether a Stay Would Unduly Prejudice or Present a Clear
Tactical Disadvantage to the Non-Moving Party
Banco contends that Golden will suffer no undue prejudice if a stay
is granted pending a decision on its motion to dismiss, because any
delay in the matter was caused by Golden's "failure to bring suit
against the right party in the right venue." Golden responds that
the analysis of prejudice must be forward-looking, relying on
Vitalis. Further, he points out that he has served discovery
requests, and that a stay would unduly delay the responses to those
requests.
Judge Miller finds that the Plaintiff has not identified any undue
prejudice to him that would attend a limited stay pending a
decision on Banco's motion. When pressed at the April 1, 2022,
status conference to articulate any specific prejudice he might
suffer in the event discovery was stayed, Golden offered that class
members can pass away, and that the Defendants' employees who are
potential witnesses could leave their jobs and become difficult to
locate. However, the risks the Plaintiff identifies are no
different in kind or quantity than the risks present in all
litigation that is not otherwise expedited. The complaint was filed
in 2020, and the identified transactions on which Golden bases his
claims are alleged to have occurred in 2019. Thus, the information
relevant to the claims should be readily available if, and when,
discovery proceeds in the case. This factor weighs in favor of
granting a stay of discovery.
B. Whether Denial of the Stay Would Create a Clear Case of Hardship
or Inequity for the Moving Party
As to the hardship that it might endure should a stay be denied,
Banco primarily argues that the discovery requests Golden has
already served constitute a "fishing expedition," seek information
that is confidential and involves non-parties, and are extensive
and overly burdensome. Golden contends that Banco's stay motion
"reads like an opposition to a motion compel discovery," and
characterizes Banco's assertions as simply part of the discovery
process and not a basis for a stay.
Judge Miller finds that Banco has not demonstrated a "clear case of
hardship or inequity" if the motion to stay is denied. This factor
weighs against the granting of a stay of discovery.
C. Whether a Stay Would Simply the Issues and the Trial of the
Case
The parties differ as to what perspective the Court must take to
evaluate this factor. Banco claims its motion to dismiss is
"dispositive" and a ruling on it will simplify the case. It further
contends the dismissal motion is "nonfrivolous." Banco does not,
however, explain how the discovery in the case might be narrowed if
it obtains only partial relief on the motion to dismiss, or if
plaintiff is allowed to replead. Golden urges the Court to consider
whether a stay will simplify the issues, rather than focusing on
the underlying motion to dismiss. He also argues that Banco's
motion to dismiss is based on pleading failures, which could be
cured, thus resulting in no narrowing of issues.
While she is skeptical that Banco's understanding of this factor is
correct, Judge Miller nevertheless finds, as Banco claims, that the
motion to dismiss is "nonfrivolous." That said, she concludes that
Banco has not met its burden to demonstrate that the resolution of
its motion will necessarily simplify the issues in this case. As a
result, this factor weighs against granting a stay.
D. Whether Discovery is Complete and/or a Trial Date Has Been Set
Finally, Judge Miller considers the stage of this case at the time
the stay was sought. Certainly, discovery was and is far from
complete; it has, in fact, barely begun. And, although the Court
has put a Trial Management Order, with a discovery schedule and
trial date, in place, these dates could be modified depending on
the needs of the litigation. This factor, then, weighs in favor of
a stay.
III. Conclusion
Having found that the four factors divide fairly evenly in support
of and against granting a stay, Judge Miller must conclude that
Banco has not met its burden, and the "extraordinary" remedy of a
stay of discovery is not warranted. Accordingly, the premises
considered, she denied the motion to stay.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/47jhw4nv from
Leagle.com.
BAY CITY, MI: LaDrigue Given Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGAN MARIE LADRIGUE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF BAY CITY and
CITY OF BAY CITY DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11196 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff and
Intervening Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended
Complaint.
I. Background
In April 2019, Bay City resident LaDrigue brought the putative
class action against the City and its Downtown Development
Authority (DDA), seeking a refund of the "thousands of dollars"
that she paid in municipal parking tickets. Like the plaintiffs in
similar cases brought throughout the country, LaDrigue claims that
Bay City and the DDA's practice of tire-chalking violates the
Fourth Amendment.
Now, three years after bringing the case, LaDrigue has decided to
"move on." She and putative class member Jody E. Tyvela have filed
a motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute Tyvela as
the named Plaintiff.
The Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Intervening
Plaintiff Tyvela cannot substitute for LaDrigue because Tyvela's
claims are time barred. The DDA has also filed a motion to dismiss
the case for LaDrigue's failure to seek class certification.
II. Discussion
A.
The first issue is whether LaDrigue and Tyvela may file an amended
complaint adding Tyvela as named Plaintiff and dismissing LaDrigue.
The Defendants contend that it would be futile to amend the
complaint because Tyvela's claims would not relate back. They also
argue that amending the complaint would be futile because the
proposed amended complaint does not identify "when Tyvela was
allegedly issued parking ticket(s)." The Defendants reason that
Tyvela's tickets might have been issued outside the three-year
statute of limitations.
In American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, the Supreme Court
held that "the commencement of a class action suspends the
applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the
class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to
continue as a class action." For this reason, at least one federal
court of appeals has held that when a putative class member is
added as a named plaintiff, her claims will relate back to the date
of the original pleading.
LaDrigue and Tyvela's motion to amend the complaint will be denied
in part as to the request to dismiss LaDrigue from the case.
LaDrigue may decide, as a result, that dismissal with prejudice is
in her best interest. But Judge Ludington will not allow her to
proceed as an absent class member without first responding to the
Defendants' discovery requests and, if necessary, summary-judgment
arguments.
In summary, Judge Ludington opines that because Tyvela is entitled
to American Pipe tolling, and because her claims arise from the
same conduct set forth in the complaint, she may intervene in the
case as a named Plaintiff. LaDrigue, however, may not be dropped as
a named Plaintiff given the potential prejudice to the Defendants.
The Defendants have been trying to depose LaDrigue for years and
appear to have invested significant resources to develop legal
defenses specific to her claims.
B.
The next issue is whether the case should be dismissed for
LaDrigue's failure to timely seek class certification. The DDA
contends that LaDrigue should have filed a motion for class
certification by Nov. 29, 2019. Her failure to do so, the DDA
argues, requires the dismissal of all class allegations. And given
LaDrigue's decision to "move on," DDA contends that the dismissal
of all class allegations would moot the case.
DDA's motion to dismiss will be denied for two reasons, Judge
Ludington opines. First, DDA forfeited any objection to LaDrigue's
violation of the scheduling order by not timely raising it. Having
decided not to raise the issue for eight months before the case was
stayed -- thus contributing to LaDrigue's apparent confusion -- the
DDA may not seek dismissal for LaDrigue's untimeliness. Second, the
DDA has not shown that dismissal of the class allegations is
justified under the circumstances. By all appearances, LaDrigue did
not respond to the DDA's motion because her counsel forgot to file
a response brief. Although frustrating, such forgetfulness does not
justify granting a motion that is unsupported by the record.
Because the class allegations will not be dismissed, Judge
Ludington need not consider the DDA's argument that the case would
be moot without the class allegations.
III. Disposition
Judge Ludington concludes that because Tyvela's claims relate back
to the complaint, LaDrigue and Tyvela's motion to amend the
complaint will be granted as to their request to add Tyvela as a
named Plaintiff. The motion will be denied, however, as to their
request to dismiss LaDrigue as a named Plaintiff, as dismissing
LaDrigue at this juncture would unduly prejudice the Defendants.
Finally, the DDA's motion to dismiss will be denied because the DDA
forfeited any objection to LaDrigue's untimeliness, and because
dismissal is unwarranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b).
Accordingly, Judge Ludington granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff LaDrigue and Intervening Plaintiff Tyvela's Motion for
Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. The request to add Tyvela
as a named Plaintiff is granted. The amended complaint must
identify the date on which Tyvela received at least one qualifying
parking ticket. The request to drop LaDrigue is denied. LaDrigue
will remain a named Plaintiff and must comply with all duly made
discovery requests until further order of the Court.
Further, Defendant DDA's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Further, Plaintiff LaDrigue and Intervening Plaintiff Tyvela's
Motion to Expedite is denied as moot.
An amended scheduling order with the remaining dates will be issued
separately.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4968ua3a from Leagle.com.
BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces Anthony Shareholder Suit in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended February 26, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that on June 11, 2021, a
derivative action was filed on behalf of the company against
certain present and former directors and officers entitled "Michael
Anthony v. Mark Tritton et. al.," Index No. 514167/2021 filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. It
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
waste of corporate assets under state law arising from the events
underlying the securities class actions described above and from
its repurchases of its own shares during the class period pled in
the securities cases.
After mediation, a settlement in principle was reached subsequent
to year-end. The settlement remains subject to documentation and
court approval.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an omni-channel retailer into the home,
baby, beauty & wellness markets operating a robust omni-channel
platform consisting of various websites and applications and
physical retail stores.
BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces Schneider Shareholder Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended February 26, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that it is facing a
shareholder derivative action, captioned "Schneider v. Tritton, et
al.," Index No. 516051/2020, filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Kings in August 28, 2020. It asserts
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste
of corporate assets under state law arising from the events
underlying the securities class actions described above and from
its repurchases of its own shares during the class period pled in
the securities cases.
On September 21, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation seeking to
stay that action pending disposition of a motion to dismiss in the
securities class action, subject to various terms and conditions.
After mediation, a settlement in principle was reached subsequent
to year-end. The settlement remains subject to documentation and
court approval.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an omni-channel retailer into the home,
baby, beauty & wellness markets operating a robust omni-channel
platform consisting of various websites and applications and
physical retail stores.
BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces Shareholder Suits in NJ Court
------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended February 26, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that it is facing three
related shareholder derivative actions filed in the New Jersey
federal court on behalf of the company against various present and
former directors and officers.
The case, which is captioned "Salu v. Tritton, et al.," Case No.
2:20-cv-08673-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.), asserts claims under the Exchange
Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste
of corporate assets under state law arising from the events
underlying the securities class actions described above and from
its repurchases of its own shares during the class period pled in
the securities cases.
The two other derivative actions, which assert similar claims, are
captioned "Grooms v. Tritton, et al.," Case No.
2:20-cv-09610-SDW-RDW (July 29, 2020, D.N.J.) and "Mantia v.
Fleming, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-09763-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.) (filed
July 31, 2020).
On August 5, 2020, the court signed a stipulation by the parties in
the Salu case to stay that action pending disposition of a motion
to dismiss in the Securities Class Action, subject to various terms
outlined in the stipulation. The parties in all three derivative
cases have moved to consolidate them and to apply the Salu stay of
proceedings to all three actions. The court granted the motion on
October 14, 2020, but the stay was subsequently lifted. On January
4, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an omni-channel retailer into the home,
baby, beauty & wellness markets operating a robust omni-channel
platform consisting of various websites and applications and
physical retail stores.
BED BATH & BEYOND: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended February 26, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that, after a mediation held
in August 2021, a settlement in principle was reached between the
company and the lead plaintiff in a securities class action pending
in New Jersey. The settlement has been executed and was
preliminarily approved by the New Jersey Federal Court in February
2022.
A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020
against Bed Bath & Beyond and three of its officers and/or
directors (Mark Tritton, Mary Winston, the company's former Interim
Chief Executive Officer, and Robyn D'Elia, the company's former
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer) in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case, which is
captioned "Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al.," Case No.
2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of its
securities from October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020. The
complaint alleges that certain of the company's disclosures about
financial performance and certain other public statements during
the putative class period were materially false or misleading.
A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same
claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same
defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020. That case, captioned
"Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al.," Case No.
1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and
appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Lead plaintiff and
additional named plaintiff Richard Lipka filed an Amended Class
Action Complaint on October 20, 2020, on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of the company's securities from September 4, 2019
through February 11, 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on December 21, 2020.
After a mediation held in August 2021, a settlement in principle
was reached between the Company and lead plaintiff in the
Securities Class Action. The settlement has been executed and was
preliminarily approved by the New Jersey Federal Court in February
2022.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an omni-channel retailer into the home,
baby, beauty & wellness markets operating a robust omni-channel
platform consisting of various websites and applications and
physical retail stores.
BELIV LLC: Nectar Petit Brand Contains Preservatives, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Beliv LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-80643-RAR (S.D. Fla., April
26, 2022) alleges that Beliv manufactures, labels, markets, and
sells fruit punch nectar represented as having "No Preservatives"
under the Nectar Petit brand.
The representation that the Product contains "No Preservatives" is
false, deceptive, and misleading, because the Product contains
citric acid and ascorbic acid ingredients, which are preservatives
and function as preservatives, the suit contends.
Preservatives are defined as something that preserves or have the
power of preserving, specifically, an additive used to protect
against decay, discoloration, or spoilage.
Even though the component juices of the Product contain relatively
low pH levels, foodborne pathogens can survive pasteurization. The
addition of the preservatives, citric acid and ascorbic acid,
ensure that if any undesirable organisms survive, the food remains
safe to eat if it is consumed within a reasonable amount of time,
the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq.
AJK LEGAL
1001 Brickell Bay Dr Ste 2700
Miami FL 33401
Telephone: (877) 448-8404
E-mail: korolinsky@ajklegal.com
- and -
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
BLUE DIAMOND: Colpitts File Bid For Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Colpitts,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 1:20-cv-02487-JPC (S.D.N.Y), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying a class of:
"all persons who purchased Smokehouse Almonds (the
"Product") sold by Blue Diamond Growers ("Defendant") in
New York between March 17, 2017, through the present,
excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case;
Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling
interest; Defendant's officers, directors, legal
representatives, successors, and assigns; and persons who
purchased the Product for the purpose of resale;"
2. Certifying an issue class based on whether certification
is warranted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) "with
respect to particular issues," such as Defendant's
conduct, and liability and damages, based on GBL sections
349(h) and 350-e(3);
3. Appointing Matthew Colpitts as representative of the
Class; and
4. Appointing Sheehan & Associates, P.C., as Class Counsel.
Blue Diamond is a California agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in almonds.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rZqfdS
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BOSTON BEER: Faces Shareholder Suit in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------
The Boston Beer Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended February 26, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that in September 14,
2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by an individual
shareholder in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and three of its officers.
The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 between April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021. The plaintiff
claims that defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's business, operations, and prospects.
The Boston Beer Company, Inc. and its certain subsidiaries are
engaged in the business of selling alcohol beverages throughout the
United States and in selected international markets.
BOSTON BEER: Settles Mislabeling Suit in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------
The Boston Beer Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended February 26, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that in March 26, 2022
it settled a class action lawsuit filed by two individuals in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California in August 26, 2021.
The complaint alleged claims for false advertising, breach of
warranty, unlawful business practices, unfair competition, and
violations of certain California and New York consumer protection
acts. The plaintiff claimed that the company falsely or
misleadingly labelled its "Truly" products with respect to the
ingredients contained therein. This matter was resolved during the
thirteen weeks ended March 26, 2022.
The Boston Beer Company, Inc. and its certain subsidiaries are
engaged in the business of selling alcohol beverages throughout the
United States and in selected international markets.
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA GM Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ALICE CLARK,
CHRISTOPHER COULTER, AARON PEREZ and KEVIN NELSON, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC d/b/a MYEYEDR, Case No.
1:22-cv-10236-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order authorizing notice to and conditionally certifying the
following collectives:
"All current and former employees with the title General
Manager ("GMs") employed by Capital Vision Services at any
of Defendant's retail locations in the United States at any
time on or after February 11, 2019 "), and All current and
former GMs who were hired from outside of MyEyeDr, and spent
a week or more in-store training (hereafter referred to as
"General Managers In Training" or "GMITs"), employed by
MyEyeDr at any of MyEyeDr's retail locations in the United
States at any time on or after February 11, 2019."
This is an archetypal FLSA misclassification case for which courts
routinely grant conditional certification.
The Plaintiffs and 17 Opt-In Plaintiffs all were employed by
Defendant during the three years preceding the filing of the
Complaint. The Plaintiffs present substantial evidence that,
pursuant to company-wide policies and procedures, all GMITs and GMs
at Defendant's retail locations nationwide regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week without being paid overtime compensation
because of MyEyeDr's uniform, common, widespread and unlawful
policy of misclassifying GMITs and GMs as exempt from the overtime
protections under the FLSA, including during their training period.
The Plaintiffs filed their initial collective and class action
Complaint on February 11, 2022. On March 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed their Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). Defendant filed its Answer
and Affirmative Defenses to the Amended Complaint on April 4,
2022.
The Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying
them and other GMITs and GMs as exempt, and failing to pay them
overtime for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek.
MyEyeDr operates over 500 retail locations across the United
States, including in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut,
North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, Maryland, and Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kiGSNd
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sam J. Smith, Esq.
Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq.
BURR & SMITH LLP
9800 4th Street North, Suite 200
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Telephone: (813) 253-2010
E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
FAIR WORK, PC.
www.fairworklaw.com
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3261
Facsimile: (617)-488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Camar Jones, Esq.
Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
cjones@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Allowed to Appeal Arbitration Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS
VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs
v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00902
WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William A. Shubb of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California:
(i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; and
(ii) granted the Plaintiffs' alternative motion for
certification for interlocutory appeal of the Court's
order compelling arbitration.
I. Motion for Reconsideration
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its order compelling
Plaintiffs Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal to arbitration in
light of the California Court of Appeal's recent decision in
Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., 75 Cal.App.4th 365 (2d
Dist. 2022). In Ramirez, that court held that Charter's Solution
Channel Agreement -- the same arbitration agreement the Court
enforced in its prior order -- was unenforceable due to procedural
and substantive unconscionability.
A court may reconsider a prior order if it "is presented with newly
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an
intervening change in the controlling law." Because Ramirez was
decided after the court ordered Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and
Abascal to arbitration, the Plaintiffs argue the decision
represents an intervening change in controlling law.
However, as the Ninth Circuit has stated, "decisions of
California's six district appellate courts are persuasive but do
not bind each other or the Ninth Circuit." Although the Ninth
Circuit has noted that federal courts nonetheless "should" follow
the California Court of Appeal's decisions regarding California law
in most circumstances, this does not render the Court of Appeal's
decisions binding. Because Ramirez is not binding, it does not
constitute a "change in the controlling law," and the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied.
II. Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal
The Plaintiffs alternatively request that the Court certifies its
order compelling arbitration for interlocutory appeal. A district
court may certify an order for interlocutory appeal if the order
(1) "involves a controlling question of law" (2) "as to which there
is substantial ground for difference of opinion" and (3) "an
immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation."
Judge Shubb holds that the Court's order compelling arbitration
"involves a controlling question of law." Whether California law on
contracts and unconscionability prohibits enforcement of an
arbitration agreement with the provisions contained in the Solution
Channel Agreement is a question of law. That question is also
controlling, as it was dispositive to the Court's previous order.
The issue also presents a "substantial ground for difference of
opinion." Finally, an immediate appeal from the court's order "may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."
Further, in opposing Plaintiff Sinclair's pending motion for class
certification, Charter has argued that Sinclair lacks standing to
represent certain putative class members, n argument that would
become moot if the other plaintiffs rejoin the action as proposed
class representatives.
Because Judge Shubb, therefore, concludes that 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b)'s requirements are satisfied, he will certify its order
compelling Plaintiffs Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal to
arbitration for interlocutory appeal.
III. Conclusion
Judge Shubb denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. He
granted the Plaintiffs' alternative motion for certification for
interlocutory appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration.
All proceedings in the case are stayed pending resolution of the
interlocutory appeal, and the hearings on the instant motion and on
the Defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply, and on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, currently calendared
for May 31, 2022, are vacated.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p895zxy from Leagle.com.
CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adam Barnett, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated, v. Concentrix Solutions
Corporation, a New York corporation, and Concentrix CVG Customer
Management Group, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-00266-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA);
2. approving that notice be issued to all current and former
Concentrix employees who worked as Customer
Representatives in Arizona from February 18, 2019 to the
present;
3. authorizing Barnett to mail, email and text notice to all
Representatives;
4. approving the Proposed Notice and Consent to Opt-In
to Collective Action; and
5. requiring that, within 21 days of the Court's ruling on
this Motion, Defendants Concentrix Solutions Corporation
and Concentrix CVG Customer Management Group, Inc. produce
the requested contact information of all Representatives.
Barnett alleges that Representatives were required to work
significant hours off the clock for which they should have been
paid and should have received overtime pursuant to the FLSA.
Barnett also alleges that Concentrix unlawfully failed to pay
non-discretionary "incentive pay" that Representatives earned when
determining the hourly rate used to calculate overtime pay.
Through this action, Barnett seeks to recover the overtime
compensation and incentive pay the Representatives have earned but
not been paid.
Concentrix is an American business services company specializing in
customer engagement and business performance.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LvHHhQ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
6017 N. 15th Street
Phoenix, AZ rizona
Telephone: (602) 682-6450
E-mail: TDF@yprklaw.com
PNS@yprklaw.com
CONTACTUS LLC: Amended Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Pyfrom
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHADEZA PYFROM v.
CONTACTUS, LLC D/B/A CONCTATUS COMMUNICATIONS, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-04293-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura entered an amended preliminary pretrial order:
-- Motions or stipulations Sept.5, 2022
addressing the parties or
pleadings, if any, must be
filed by:
-- The motion for class April 5, 2023
certification shall be
filed by:
-- All fact discovery shall April 5, 2023
be completed by:
-- Case dispositive motions May 22, 2023
must be filed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lodp0s at no extra charge.[CC]
CRST INT'L: Supplemental Scheduling Order Modified in Cervantes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CERVANTES and MIKE
CROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case No.
20-CV-0075-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney
entered an order granting the joint motion to modify the
supplemental scheduling order and discovery plan, and staying the
scheduling order deadlines pending ruling on the class
certification motion.
The parties must submit a second supplemental scheduling order
within two weeks of when the court files an order on the motion for
class certification. Any request for hearing on the proposed
deadlines should be included in the proposed second supplemental
scheduling order, the Court says.
CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OH2a54 at no extra charge.[CC]
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Del Fierro Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON DEL FIERRO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-07091-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the First
Cause of Action contained in the Class Action Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on the
grounds that (1) the Class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of
law and fact common to the Class, (3) the class
representative's claims are typical of the claims of the
Class, and (4) the class 13 representative will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Class.
2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and certifying
the following Class: All current and former non-exempt
employees of Defendant DynCorp International, LLC who were
paid any shift premium wages (including certification
premiums) at any time from August 14, 2018, through the
date that the class is certified and did not work at a
property that became a federal enclave before 1943.
3. Finding Plaintiff to be an adequate representative and
certifying him as the class representative.
4. Finding Plaintiff's counsel and their respective firms,
namely Larry W. Lee 23 of Diversity Law Group, P.C.,
Edward W. Choi of Law Offices of Choi and Associates,
Dennis S. Hyun of Hyun Legal, and William L. Marder of
Polaris Law Group as adequate class counsel and certifying
them as class counsel.
DynCorp was an American private military contractor.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kgdeIF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
- and -
Edward W. Choi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, APLC
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 381-1515
Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
HYUN LEGAL, APC
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
EDMUNDSON, MO: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTON M. THOMAS and
BRADLEY JILES, v. CITY OF EDMUNDSON, Case No. 4:18-CV-02071-RLW
(E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Classes (composed of the Jailed
Class, the Paid Fines Class, and the Warrant Class);
2. granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement;
3. directing the dissemination of notice; and
4. scheduling a final settlement hearing; and for any other
relief this Court deems appropriate.
The parties agree that three Settlement Classes should be defined
as follows:
-- Jailed Class
"All persons who, between December 12, 2013, and July 1,
2021, were ARRESTED or INCARCERATED by or on behalf of
Defendant City of Edmundson (as identified by Plaintiffs'
Expert Witness Dr. William Rogers or the Claims
Administrator during the course of the Litigation);
-- Paid Fines Class
"All persons who, between December 12, 2013, and July 1,
2021, PAID a fine, fee, cost, surcharge, or other monetary
sum to Defendant City of Edmundson; and
-- Warrant Class
"All persons who were the subject of an ARREST WARRANT
issued between December 12, 2013, and July 1, 2021, by
Defendant City of Edmundson."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OP8Jmu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blake A. Strode, Esq.
John M. Waldron, Esq.
Maureen G.V. Hanlon, Esq.
Nathaniel Carroll, Esq.
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
440 North 4th Street, Ste. 390
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (855) 724-2489 ext. 1021
Facsimile: (314) 925-1307
E-mail: jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org
- and -
S. Zachary Fayne, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 471-3114
Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
E-mail: Zachary.fayne@arnoldporter.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason S. Retter, Esq.
Blake D. Hill, Esq.
Michelle Stallings, Esq.
HELLMICH, HILL & RETTER, LLC
1049 N. Clay Ave.
Kirkwood, MO 63122
Telephone: (314) 646-1110
E-mail: jason@hellmichhillretter.com
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Scheduling Order Amended in Johnson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT JOHNSON, RAUL
MARTINEZ, TERRANCE LOVETT, ROBERT PARSONS and JAVIER CUEVAS MANAGA
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ESTENSON
LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HUB GROUP
TRUCKING, INC., a Delaware corporation; HUB GROUP, INC. DOING
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS HUB GROUP; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00118-JAK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving in part the
parties' stipulation to participate in mediation and to continue
class certification deadline and related deadlines, and amending
the scheduling order as follows:
1. The deadline for Plaintiffs' motion class certification
(Rule 23) and Motion for Conditional Certification (FLSA)
is continued from July 22, 2022, to October 3, 2022;
2. The deadline for Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class 3 (Rule 23) and Motion for Conditional
Certification (FLSA) is continued from August 22, 2022, to
November 1, 2022;
3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion
for Class Certification (Rule 23) and Motion for
Conditional Certification (FLSA) is continued from
September 9, 2022, to November 15, 2022;
4. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
(Rule 23) and Motion for Conditional Certification (FLSA)
is continued from October 17, 2022, to December 5, 2022;
5. Non-expert discovery cutoff is continued from January 30,
2023, to April 17, 2023;
6. Initial expert disclosures cutoff is continued from
February 13, 2023, to May 1, 2023;
7. Rebuttal expert disclosures cutoff is continued from
February 27, 2023, to May 15, 2023;
8. Expert discovery cutoff is June 1, 2023; and
9. Last day to file motions (including discovery motions) is
June 13, 2023.
Estenson offers container, supply chain consulting, warehousing,
inventory management, and other related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MvtLUU at no extra charge.[CC]
EXPERIAN INFO: Grabner Suit Remanded to Orange County Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, remanded the case,
CHANING GRABNER and DEBRA GRABNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. SACV 22-00078-CJC (DFMx) (C.D.
Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange.
I. Introduction & Background
On Nov. 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Chaning and Debra Grabner filed the
putative class action against Defendant Experian in Orange County
Superior Court, alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiffs' FCRA claim is straightforward: They
submitted requests to Defendant for a copy of their consumer
reports and Defendant produced reports that were missing
information required by law, including "that States may enforce the
FCRA, that many states have their own consumer reporting laws, that
the consumer may have more rights under State law, and that the
consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection
agency or State attorney general for more information." The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant knowingly and willfully
omitted the information "so that consumers would be less likely to
contact their State or local consumer protection agencies and State
attorneys general."
The Defendant removed to the Court on Jan. 14, 2022, invoking the
Court's federal question jurisdiction.
Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in which
they argue that they have not alleged facts supporting Article III
standing and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over their
case.
II. Discussion
Judge Carney holds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that
support Article III standing, finding TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), informative. In TransUnion, the plaintiffs'
credit reports maintained by TransUnion contained alerts from the
U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control
("OFAC") that incorrectly identified the plaintiffs as potential
terrorists. The Supreme Court assessed the plaintiffs' standing
with respect to two claims. First, the plaintiffs claimed a
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) for TransUnion's failure to
"follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy"
which resulted in the misleading OFAC alerts. For that claim, the
Supreme Court found that some plaintiffs -- those whose credit
reports containing the misleading OFAC alerts were disseminated to
third parties -- had standing, while other plaintiffs -- those
whose credit reports were not disseminated to third parties -- did
not have standing.
The Supreme Court next assessed the plaintiffs' claim under 15
U.S.C. Section 1681g that "TransUnion breached its obligation to
provide them with their complete credit files upon request." More
specifically, the plaintiffs alleged "TransUnion sent them copies
of their credit files that omitted the OFAC information, and then
in a second mailing sent the OFAC information." Finding no Article
III standing for this claim, the Supreme Court explained that the
plaintiffs were complaining of "bare procedural violations,
divorced from any concrete harm."
In the case too, Judge Carney finds. He says, the Plaintiffs are
complaining of a non-disclosure of information -- the Defendant's
failure to apprise them "that States may enforce the FCRA, that
many states have their own consumer reporting laws, that the
consumer may have more rights under State law, and that the
consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection
agency or State attorney general for more information." Plaintiffs
do not allege that such non-disclosure resulted in any particular
harm to them. Like the plaintiffs in TransUnion, the Plaintiffs do
not allege any concrete action the Defendant's statutory violation
prevented them from taking. The only possible hook for standing
discernible from the Plaintiffs' complaint is their allegation that
the Defendant's omission made it so "consumers would be less likely
to contact their State or local consumer protection agencies and
State attorneys general."
The Plaintiffs have not alleged that they had some reason to
contact state authorities, would have done so if the requisite
information was provided, and incurred some harm or face the
substantial risk of some harm arising from the missed opportunity
to contact state authorities. Judge Carney cannot, without
speculating, discern from the Plaintiffs' complaint any action they
would have taken or harm they would have avoided if the Defendants
had provided the non-disclosed information. Given that the
Plaintiffs lacks Article III standing, this case must be remanded
to state court.
Finally, Judge Carney rejects the Plaintiffs' request for
attorneys' fees. As is clear from the parties' briefing, standing
based on the presence or absence of "downstream consequences" in
the FCRA context is a fluid and developing legal issue. Each case
presents different facts that may or may not establish standing
based on the general propositions announced by the Ninth Circuit
and Supreme Court. While he firmly agrees with the Plaintiffs that
they have not pled Article III standing, Judge Carney did not find
the Defendant's arguments objectively unreasonable.
III. Conclusion
For the following reasons, Judge Carney granted in substantial part
the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, except for their request for
fees. He ordered the action remanded to Orange County Superior
Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mst2fky5 from Leagle.com.
FCA US: Bid to Appoint Kiesel Law as Co-Trial Counsel Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS VICTORINO,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion to associate Kiesel Law
LLC as co-trial counsel;
2. granting the Plaintiff's motion to appoint Kiesel Law as
co-class counsel; and
3. granting in part Defendant's motion for order requiring
corrective class notice.
The Plaintiff shall issue an amended notice as soon as practicable.
The hearing set on April 22, 2022 shall be vacated.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vJBVCu at no extra charge.[CC]
FEDERAL HOUSING: Seeks Summary Judgment v. Fairholme Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et
al., v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-01053-RCL (D.D.C.), the the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for summary judgment.
This case arises out of the continuing consequences of one of the
greatest financial crises in the country's history. In response to
the crisis, the government took unprecedented (and successful)
efforts to assure the stability of a critical component of the
country’s economy -- the secondary mortgage market.
The Plaintiffs, who are shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
now seek to second-guess the Federal Housing Finance Agency's
(FHFA) execution of the Third Amendment to the Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreements with the U.S. Department of Treasury. After
nine years of litigation -- including numerous decisions by the
circuit courts of appeals, and now the United States Supreme Court,
holding that the Third Amendment was both authorized and a
reasonable exercise of FHFA's broad statutory powers—it is time
to end this case.
The Plaintiffs' sole remaining claim is for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising under Delaware and
Virginia law, which this Court has held is contained in the
Enterprises' contracts with shareholders.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kk3mNX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Defendant Federal Housing Finance Agency and
Acting Director Sandra L. Thompson, are:
Howard N. Cayne, Esq.
Asim Varma, Esq.
David B. Bergman, Esq.
Ian S. Hoffman, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
E-mail: Howard.Cayne@arnoldporter.com
Asim.Varma@arnoldporter.com
David.Bergman@arnoldporter.com
Ian.Hoffman@arnoldporter.com
The Attorney for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., are:
Michael J. Ciatti (D.C. Bar #467177)
KING &SPALDING LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 626-5508
Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
E-mail: mciatti@kslaw.com
The Attorney for the Federal National Mortgage Association, are:
Meaghan VerGow, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 383-5300
Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
E-mail: mvergow@omm.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Scheduling Order Entered in Owens Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp.
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04287-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Kimberly A. Jolson entered an scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- The Plaintiff's motion for June 6, 2022
class certification:
-- Opposition to Plaintiff's motion Aug. 10, 2022
for class certification:
-- Reply in support of Plaintiff's Sept. 21, 2022
motion for class certification:
-- Motions to amend pleadings: Sept. 30, 2022
-- Fact discovery cutoff: April 28, 2023
-- Primary expert reports: May 29, 2023
-- Rebuttal expert reports: July 28, 2023
-- Reply expert reports: Sept. 1, 2023
-- Expert discovery cutoff: Oct. 6, 2023
-- Dispositive motions: Nov. 21, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y0pTYk at no extra charge.[CC]
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Ionita Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX IONTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, d/b/a ESPORTA FITNESS, Case
No. 8:22-cv-00871 (C.D. Cal,, April 26, 2022) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant is a premium fitness club and gymnasium chain with
dozens of locations across the United States. To promote its
services, the Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the 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 himself and
members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E No. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
FRONT LINE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Chaffer Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHANE CHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONT LINE EMS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00181-DCN (D. Idaho., April 25, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Chaffer was employed by the Defendant as a paramedic.
FRONT LINE EMS LLC provides emergency medical services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily MacMaster, Esq.
MACMASTER LAW, PLLC
300 W. Main Street, Suite 202
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 608-2235
Email: emacmaster07@gmail.com
emily@macmasterlaw.com
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713)621-2277
Facsimile: (713)621-0993
Email: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
GREEN DOT: May 17 Extension to Complete Discovery Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boardman v. Green Dot
Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00174-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting a 14-day extension, up to
and including May 17, 2022, of the deadline to complete discovery
solely with respect to expert discovery.
The Parties further seek to extend the briefing schedule for
Plaintiff's motion for class certification to allow the Court to
consider the complete record of proffered expert opinions in
connection with the motion.
The case arises out of the Plaintiff's claim for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) concerning her
alleged receipt of text messages from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of allegedly similar
individuals with respect to her claim that Defendant allegedly
violated Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA regarding regulations that
concern the maintenance of an internal Do Not Call list. On March
30, 2022, in accordance with the Court's scheduling order, the
Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Green Dot Corporation is an American financial technology and
bank holding company headquartered in Austin.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s0p5P9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 7376
Asheville, NC 28802-7376
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
E-mail:Dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Facsimile: (954) 400-4710
E-mail: Mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Avenue Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 786-496-4469
E-mail:Ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Whitney M. Smith, Esq.
Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
One Jefferson Road
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (973) 503-5900
Facsimile: (973) 503-5950
E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com
wsmith@kelleydrye.com
- and -
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
P.O. Box 7376
Asheville, NC 28802-7376
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
E-mail:Dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Thomas G. Hooper, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
301 South College Street, Suite 2300
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 417-3000
Facsimile: (704) 377-4814
E-mail: tom.hooper@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
William H. Latham, Esq.
1320 Main Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 255-9533
Facsimile: (803) 255-9075
E-mail: bill.latham@nelsonmullins.com
GT MARKETING: Pastore Suit Seeks to Amend Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN A. PASTORE v. GT
MARKETING GROUP USA, INC., d/b/a ECCENTRY HOLIDAYS, Case No. e
6:21-cv-01483-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an amended scheduling order extending all pre-trial deadlines
by 90 days, and for any and all such further relief as may be
deemed just and equitable under the circumstances.
Mr. Pastore asks the Court to amend its November 4, 2021 Case
Management and Scheduling Order.
The case is a putative class action brought pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The First Amended
Complaint alleges three attempted charges to Plaintiff's provided
credit card number by a party which uses Defendant's trade name
after identical prerecorded voice calls to Plaintiff's specified
cell phone number on three specific dates; these allegations push
Plaintiff's claims over the line from merely conceivable to
plausible on their face.
The Plaintiff has demonstrated Defendant's connection to the
alleged calls and charges by providing a charge log that identifies
Defendant's trade name.
Nevertheless, Defendant denies any connection to the allege calls
or charges.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y2eRld
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
E-mail: Jeggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
The Defendant is represented by:
Marty A. Stone, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF M.A. STONE, LLC
14142 Amelia Island Way
Orlando, FL 32828
Telephone: (321) 443-4643
E-mail: mstone@maslaw.net
- and -
Brian R. Cummings, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER P.A.
401 E. Jackson St., Suite 1825
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 769-7020
Facsimile: (813) 426-8582
E-mail: Brian.Cummings@gmlaw.com
Cristina.Warder@gmlaw.com
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suits in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 20, 2022, that it is facing three
class action complaints filed against it in the Northern District
of California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the
service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the
company.
A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021,
Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District
No. 1 on July 6, 2021 while one by Kaleida Health on July 8, 2021.
The court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King
County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with
the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the
Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust
Litigation." A consolidated amended class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed
cases.
On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as
a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the company filed an
answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has
commenced.
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Port Angeles Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PORT ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02531 (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Port Angeles School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 905 West 9th Street in Port Angeles,
Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Sedro-Woolley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEDRO-WOOLLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02527 (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Sedro-Woolley School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 801 Trail Road in Sedro-Woolley, Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Hoquiam School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOQUIAM SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02526 (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Hoquiam School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 325 West Chenault Street in Hoquiam,
Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Marshall Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads for Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02530 (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Marshall Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 100 East Green Street in Marshall, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Crisis Among Youth, Oakville Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OAKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02523-WHO (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Oakville School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 103 School Street, Oakville, Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Yakima Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02532 (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Yakima School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 104 North 4th Avenue in Yakima, Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KENTUCKY: Denial of Judgment Bid in Conn v. Parole Board Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LANCE CONN, MARK DEWITT, KELVIN ROBERSON, AND RALPH
SHOLLER, Appellants v. KENTUCKY PAROLE BOARD, Appellee, Case No.
2020-CA-1495-MR (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
affirmed the Franklin Circuit Court's order denying the Appellants'
motion for summary judgment that challenged the Kentucky Parole
Board's authority to issue a serve-out on a life sentence.
I. Background
Kentucky state inmates, Appellants Lance Conn, Mark Dewitt, Kelvin
Roberson, and Ralph Sholler, were given a life sentence, but were
not found guilty of a charge that would qualify them for a sentence
of life without parole ("LWOP"). All four Appellants were given a
serve-out on their life sentences by the Board.
The Appellants' brief describes the Appellants as such: "Mr. Conn
was an accomplice to a murder and robbery, who was served-out after
the Board mistakenly believed he had a prior felony when he did
not. Mr. Sholler and Mr. Roberson were served-out on life sentences
imposed for non-homicide offenses. Mr. Dewitt was convicted of a
single count of murder in 1980 and a low-risk inmate who had been
successfully classified down to a community custody level when he
was served-out on his life sentence." The record provides further
conviction and parole information.
The action originally began in 2013 in Franklin Circuit Court when
19 inmate Plaintiffs alleged that the Board was not complying with
the Public Safety and Offender Accountability Act, commonly
referred to as House Bill 463. The matter and the parties have
evolved over the years, but as related to the appeal, in June 2019,
the Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment challenging the
Board's authority to order a serve-out for those serving a life
sentence. They requested reinstatement of their parole eligibility.
In October 2020, the circuit court denied the motion. The circuit
court stated that the Board does have authority to grant a
serve-out on a life sentence. The appeal resulted.
II. Analysis
The Appellants aptly point out that the Legislature sets the
state's sentencing guidelines. "Determining what should be a crime
and setting punishments for such crimes is a legislative function."
After the Legislature set those parameters, then the Judiciary
determines guilt and selects or implements a sentence within that
legislative range. Any "sentence imposed beyond the limitations of
the Legislature as statutorily imposed is unlawful and void." The
Panel agrees with the Appellants that the Executive Branch (here,
the Board) has no independent authority to determine sentencing
guidelines. The Board can only "set the conditions of release, as
well as the terms of supervision, after a prisoner has been
sentenced by the court and has begun serving his or her sentence."
The Appellants argue that by giving a serve-out, the Board is
essentially changing a life sentence to a LWOP sentence, which (1)
exceeds the power given to them by statute and (2) violates the
separation of powers doctrine.
A. Statutory Authority
The Appellants argue that the Legislature never authorized LWOP for
offenses lacking an aggravating factor. KRS 532.025(3) provides
that the jury must designate in writing the aggravating
circumstance or circumstances for sentences recommending death,
LWOP, and life without probation or parole for 25 years. The
Appellants' sentences include no such aggravating factor. But, the
Legislature did grant the Board broad discretion in its duties.
Looking at the language of the statute, the Court of Appeals opines
that they're bound by its plain meaning: "No deferment will exceed
ten (10) years, except for life sentences." Thus, for life
sentences, the statute does allow for deferments longer than 10
years. The Court of Appeals cannot infer language not present in
the statute; the statute does not require a deferment be granted
for life sentences. As is often repeated in these matters, parole
is not a right but a privilege. Consequently, the Legislature has
not prohibited the Board from authorizing a serve-out for life
sentence.
B. Separation of Powers
The Appellants argue that Kentucky is a strict adherent to the
separation of powers doctrine. To this, the Court of Appeals
agrees.
The Appellants also contend that by granting a serve-out, the Board
is imposing on those powers granted to the Judiciary. To this, the
Court of Appeals does not agree. It opines that there is no
violation of statute and it is not willing to take the leap to
imply one exists from the current language of KRS 439.340.
The Court of Appeals' conclusion is supported by Simmons v.
Commonwealth, 232 S.W.3d 531 (Ky. App. 2007), current Kentucky
precedent. In Simmons, it stated "it is well-recognized in Kentucky
that the power to grant parole is purely an executive function."
Further, it held that ordering a serve-out was within the Board's
discretionary powers and by doing so the Board does not "invade the
functions reserved for the judicial or legislative branches of
government.
The Court of Appeals finds Simmons to still be the law of the
Commonwealth. It agrees with the circuit court that "the Simmons
case has not been distinguished in any meaningful way, and thus the
Board still retains the power to serve-out a parole-eligible life
sentence. Unless Simmons is overruled, the Court of Appeals is
bound by its holding."
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
Franklin Circuit Court. All concurred.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8tre7j from Leagle.com.
Timothy G. Arnold Andrea Reed -- ANDREA.REED@SIDLEY.COM -- in
Frankfort, Kentucky, Briefs for the Appellants.
DanielCameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Barry L. Dunn, Deputy
Attorney General, Matthew F. Kuhn, Solicitor General, Brett R.
Nolan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Jeffrey A. Cross, Deputy
Solicitor General, in Frankfort, Kentucky, Brief for Amicus Curiae
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Angela T. Dunham -- angela.dunham@ky.gov -- Amy V. Barker, in
Frankfort, Kentucky, Brief for the Appellee.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dix Sues Over Sale of Defective CPAP Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DIX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC., and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02158 (D. Kan., April 26, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for strict products liability,
negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligent
manufacturing, negligence/gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, fraud through silence, breach of express
warranties, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the Defendants'
alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff has suffered personal injuries
including harm to his respiratory system, cellular damage, DNA
damage, and lung cancer.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a company that manufactures and
distributes medical systems and lighting appliances, headquartered
in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brad Kuhlman, Esq.
Jamie Rodriguez, Esq.
KUHLMAN & LUCAS, LLC
4700 Belleview Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 799-0330
Facsimile: (816) 799-0336
E-mail: brad@kuhlmanlucas.com
jamie@kuhlmanlucas.com
KROGER COMPANY: Schell Seeks Withdrawal of Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS SCHELL and
CHRISTOPHER RILEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY d/b/a KROGER, Case No.
1:21-cv-00103-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order deeming as withdrawn their motion for conditional
certification and court-authorized notice.
This action seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation on behalf
of Assistant Store Managers (now referred to as Assistant Store
Leaders) employed by The Kroger.
On May 13, 2021, the parties stipulated to conditional
certification of a collective action comprising Assistant Store
Managers who worked for Kroger in its Atlanta, Columbus,
Cincinnati, Memphis (Delta), and Nashville divisions.
On October 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification of a collective action on behalf of Assistant Store
Managers who worked in the remaining "Kroger" branded divisions,
i.e., Central (Indianapolis), Michigan, Louisville, Dallas, Houston
and Mid-Atlantic (Roanoke) divisions.
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LJvlmt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Conway, Esq.
CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 278-4782
Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com
- and -
Bruce Meizlish, Esq.
Deborah Grayson, Esq.
MEIZLISH & GRAYSON
830 Main St No. 999
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 345-4700
LEVI STRAUSS: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Rankine Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK RANKINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Case No. 1:22-cv-03362 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 25, 2022) is a class action on behalf of all of Levi Strauss'
employees in the State of New York that engage in manual work in
the course of their employment seeking liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner.
The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner.
The Defendant has violated this law by paying its manual workers
every other week rather than on a weekly basis.
The Defendant owns a chain of Levi Strauss retail stores and/or
distribution facilities that employ hundreds, if not thousands, of
manual workers in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
LINCOLN COUNTY, OR: Barnett Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW L. BARNETT v.
DEPUTY BEUTLER; SHERIFF LANDERS; GOVERNOR BROWN, Case No.
6:22-cv-00319-MC (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael J. McShane
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
and dismissing his claims.
Within 30 days from the date of this Order, the plaintiff may seek
leave to amend his allegations. The Plaintiff is advised that the
failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this proceeding,
the Court says.
The Plaintiff, an inmate at the Lincoln County Jail, files this
proposed class action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and alleges
violations of inmates' constitutional rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. The Plaintiff's Complaint is deficient in
several respects and his claims are dismissed with leave to amend.
The Plaintiff purports to bring a class action on behalf of inmates
at Lincoln County Jail to challenge conduct by Deputy Beutler that
allegedly violated inmates’ constitutional rights under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that
Deputy Beutler has confiscated and/or destroyed inmates' legal
materials and "planted contraband" in retaliation for complaints
about such conduct.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xZgoIT at no extra charge.[CC]
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Allegra Seeks Approval of Class Notice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS ALLEGRA, YESENIA
ARIZA, MARIANA ELISE EMMERT, STUART ROGOFF, GRACELYNN TENAGLIA, and
MELISSA VERRASTRO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA d/b/a LensCrafters,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05216-PKC-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), approving the form and manner of class
notice.
Luxottica offers eyeglasses, contacts and related products and
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wbCjKr
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq.
Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
Brian E. Johnson, Esq.
Paul M. Stephan, Esq.
Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW
East Tower, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com
pstephan@cohenmilstein.com
ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hall, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD HALL, KEVIN BRANCA,
and GEORGE ABDELSAYED individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01715-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following classes:
-- Nationwide Class
"All persons in the United States who reserved or
booked a Marriott managed or franchised hotel room
online through the Marriott.com website or Marriott
mobile app and who paid a resort fee, destination fee,
amenity fee, or destination amenity fee in their
respective state of citizenship on or after September
9, 2015 and until the Class is certified excluding
Defendant and Defendant's officers, directors,
employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and its
staff;"
-- California Class
"All persons in California who reserved or booked a
Marriott managed or franchised hotel room online
through the Marriott.com website or Marriott mobile app
and who paid a resort fee, destination fee, amenity
fee, or destination amenity fee on or after September
9, 2015 and until the Class is certified excluding
Defendant and Defendant's officers, directors,
employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and its
staff;"
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Todd Hall and George Abdelsayed
as class representatives and the Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron, the Law Office of Robert L. Teel, and Bursor &
Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel; and
3. approving notice to the Class 26 accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).
Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential, and
timeshare properties. It is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OKstHL
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Lilach Halperin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
mike@consumersadvocates.com
lilach@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Robert L. Teel, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL
E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com
1425 Broadway, Mail Code: 20-6690
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (866) 833-5529
Facsimile: (855) 609-6911
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
MATERION BRUSH: Lucyk Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARETT LUCYK, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v.
MATERION BRUSH INC. and MATERION CORPORATION, Case No.
3:20-cv-02340-JJH (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA):
1. Conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
class;
2. Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail and
text message) to:
"All current and former hourly employees who worked for
Materion Corporation (or any of its wholly owned
subsidiaries) at any of its manufacturing facilities
during the three years preceding the filing of the
Complaint and who were required to don and doff protective
clothing or safety gear at the worksite at the
start and end of their work shifts; and
3. Requiring Materion Corporation to identify all FLSA
Collective members by providing a list of their names,
last known addresses, dates and location of employment,
phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and
importable format within ten days of the entry of the
order.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MBb1DJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
MC PAINTING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Sanchez Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURO SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent v. MC
PAINTING, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. D078817 (Cal. App.),
the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District,
Division One, affirmed the order denying MC Painting's petition to
compel arbitration.
I. Introduction
MC Painting appeals from an order denying its petition to compel
arbitration of a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab.
Code, Section 2698 et seq.) action brought by a former employee,
Sanchez. In denying the petition, the trial court followed Iskanian
v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, which
held that a worker's right to pursue a representative PAGA action
cannot be waived and that this state law rule is not preempted by
the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
On appeal, MC Painting contends Iskanian is no longer controlling
because it has been "overruled" by the U.S. Supreme Court in Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) 138 S.Ct. 1612 (Epic Systems). But in
Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 602,
619-620, and more recently again in Provost v. YourMechanic, Inc.
(2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 982, 997-998, review denied Jan. 20, 2021,
S265736, other panels of the Court of Appeals rejected that
identical claim.
Alternatively, MC Painting asks that the Court of Appeals stays the
appeal until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the FAA preemption
issue in Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Sept. 18, 2020,
B297327).
II. Background
MC Painting is in the business of painting, concrete restoration,
stucco patching, and related services. In February 2018, it hired
Sanchez, who signed a Spanish language arbitration agreement.
In English, it states in part: "In connection with any dispute,
claim, or controversy ('Claims') arising out of or in any way
related to the employment, whether based in contract, tort, or
statutory duty or prohibition, the Parties agree to submit the
Claim(s) to binding arbitration. All issues and questions
concerning the construction, validity, enforcement, and
interpretation of the Agreement will be governed by, and construed
in accordance with, the Federal Arbitration Act. Employee agrees
Employee is waiving the right to bring a class action,
representative action, or collective action."
In 2020, Sanchez filed a putative class action complaint against MC
Painting alleging wage and hour claims. Later, Sanchez voluntarily
dismissed his claims without prejudice, with the exception of a
representative PAGA cause of action.
MC Painting petitioned to compel arbitration. Citing Iskanian,
Sanchez opposed the motion stating, "the California Supreme Court
has been abundantly clear that representative PAGA claims are not
subject to arbitration." After an unreported hearing, the trial
court denied the petition, stating, "Iskanian remains good law" and
"several appellate courts" have held that a "PAGA plaintiff may not
be required to arbitrate" without the state's consent.
III. Discussion
A. The Trial Court Correctly Determined That Sanchez's Agreement to
Arbitrate Representative PAGA Claims is Unenforceable.
MC Painting contends Iskanian is no longer good law, its FAA
preemption holding having been "effectively overruled" by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Epic Systems.
But the Court of Appeals has already rejected this same contention
twice -- in Correia and Provost. As it explained in Correia, the
claim in Epic Systems differed "fundamentally from a PAGA claim"
because the employee there was "asserting claims on behalf of other
employees," whereas a PAGA plaintiff has "been deputized by the
state" to act as "the proxy or agent" of the state' "to enforce the
state's labor laws. Because Epic Systems did not decide the same
question presented in Iskanian, the Correia court concluded its
"interpretation of the FAA's preemptive scope did not defeat
Iskanian's holding or reasoning for purposes of an intermediate
appellate court applying the law." "
Moreover, as the Court of Appeals explained in Provost, more than a
year after Epic Systems was decided, the California Supreme court
reaffirmed Iskanian in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th
175 (ZB, N.A.). ZB, N.A. cited Iskanian with approval, including
its holding that an employee's predispute agreement waiving the
right to bring a representative PAGA claim is unenforceable and
this rule is not preempted by the FAA.
B. The Appeal Should Not Be Stayed
In Viking River Cruises, the Court of Appeals held that Epic
Systems did not overrule or invalidate the Iskanian rule against
PAGA waivers. After the California Supreme Court denied review in
Moriana, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider
whether the FAA requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration
agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative
PAGA claims.
MC Painting asks that the Court of Appeals "holds" this appeal "in
abeyance" until the Supreme Court decides Viking River Cruises.
However, under stare decisis, the Court of Appeals does not have
the discretion to question whether Iskanian was correctly decided
and we are duty bound to apply it in this appeal unless and until
the U.S. Supreme Court declares it to be an incorrect statement of
federal law. Obviously MC Painting can continue to raise the issue
as it pursues the appellate process.
C. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Considering Sanchez's
Late Opposition Papers
Where, as in the present case, a lawsuit is already pending, a
defendant may file a petition to compel arbitration in lieu of
filing an answer to a complaint. MC Painting did so on Dec. 23,
2020, with a proof of service by mail to an address in California
filed the same date. The hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2021.
Absent an extension of time, Sanchez's response was due 15 after
service -- that is, Jan. 7, 2021. But he did not file opposition
until March 15, 2021.
Where no timely opposition is filed, the allegations of a petition
to compel arbitration are deemed admitted. MC Painting invoked that
rule, but the trial court allowed the late filing.
In any event, the Court of Appeals opines that the consequence of
an untimely opposition is merely that the factual allegations in
the petition are deemed admitted. The trial court still must draw
legal conclusions from those deemed admitted facts. The petition
alleges: (1) MC Painting is a California corporation; (2) in the
construction industry; (3) engaged in interstate commerce; (4)
Sanchez signed the arbitration agreement; and (5) the allegations
in Sanchez's complaint arise out of or relate to his employment.
Even assuming these allegations are deemed true, the Court of
Appeals remained free to draw the legal conclusion that the
arbitration agreement was unenforceable under Iskanian as to the
representative PAGA claims. Thus, even assuming for the sake of
discussion that the trial court abused its discretion in
considering late opposition, any such error was harmless.
IV. Disposition
The Court of Appeals granted the request for judicial notice. It
affirmed the Order. Sanchez is entitled to recover costs on
appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/26pdv4az from Leagle.com.
Finch, Thornton & Baird, Chad T. Wishchuk -- cwishchuk@ftblaw.com
-- and Marlene C. Nowlin -- mnowlin@ftblaw.com -- for the Defendant
and Appellant.
Moon & Yang, Kane Moon -- kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com -- Allen
Feghali -- allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com -- and Enzo Nabiev --
enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com -- for the Plaintiff and Respondent.
MDL 2179: Court Transfers Law Suit to E.D. La.
----------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case docketed as "Law v. BP
Exploration & Production, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:21−00520,
filed in the U.S. District court for the Southern District of
Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana and with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Carl J. Barbier for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG “DEEPWATER
HORIZON” IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179.
Actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from the
explosion and fire that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon offshore
drilling rig, and the resulting oil spill. Law alleges that she has
suffered personal injuries as a result of exposure to oil and
chemicals released during the oil spill and the cleanup efforts
that followed.
Law moved to vacate the order that conditionally transferred her
case to the Eastern District of Louisiana for inclusion in MDL No.
2179. BP and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., opposed the
motion.
Law argued that, because the transferee court already has resolved
the issue of defendants' liability for the spill, the only issues
remaining in her case are individual, namely, whether exposure to
oil or chemicals from the spill caused her injury and, if so, the
extent of her damages.
The panel held that in the case of personal injury actions in the
MDL such as hers, the transferee court has established procedures
for determining which of the remaining personal injury claims in
the MDL have a sufficient evidentiary basis to proceed further and
should be remanded, transferred, or assigned to a judge within the
Eastern District of Louisiana for further proceedings. Those
procedures require plaintiffs to provide basic information and
documentation relating to the very issues of specific causation
that the plaintiff identifies as unique to her case. The panel
further rules that until the transferee judge indicates that BP
cases no longer are required to complete this process, there is no
reason to exempt her action from complying with the pretrial orders
applicable to all other cases.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3xRlmr1
MDL 2804: Transfer of City of Holly and Taylor Suits Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denies the transfer of cases docketed
"City of Holly Springs v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.," (C.A. No.
3:21−00246, Northern District of Mississippi) and "Taylor v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," (C.A. No. 2:21−04276, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania) to the Northern District of Ohio for inclusion in MDL
No. 2804.
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to transfer the actions to the
Northern District of Ohio. While Tad Taylor supported the motion to
transfer, City of Holly Springs moved to vacate the order
conditionally transferring its action. Defendants opposed the
motion to vacate the conditional transfer order.
These action allege improper marketing and distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into states, cities and towns
across the country. Defendants Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, CVS
Health, Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.,
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis
Pharma, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan U.S.A., Inc., Cephalon
Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Watson Laboratories Inc. are
pharmaceutical companies and dealers.
The panel finds that the two actions share factual questions
regarding the allegedly improper marketing and distribution of
various prescription opiate medications into states, cities, and
towns across the country. Both actions fall within the MDL's ambit,
given that they share a factual core with the MDL actions: the
manufacturer, distributor, and/or pharmacist defendants' alleged
knowledge of and conduct regarding the diversion of these
prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' allegedly
improper marketing of the drugs.
The panel, however, opines that the relative merits of transferring
new tag-along actions to an MDL can change over time as the
transferee court completes its primary tasks. At a certain point,
the "benefits of transfer should not be assumed to continue," and
MDL No. 2804 has reached the point where the benefits are
outweighed by the effects of transferring new cases to this mature
litigation. Thus, inclusion of these two actions and any future
actions in MDL No. 2804 is no longer necessary to achieve the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation, rules the panel.
A full-text copy of the Court's April, 2022 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/37DTa09
MDL 3014: Transfer of SoClean Action to Philips Litigation Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In "In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and Mechanical
Ventilator Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3014, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denies the transfer of the case captioned
"SoClean, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al.," C.A. No.
1:21−11662 from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.
Defendants Philips RS North America LLC and Philips North America
LLC moved to transfer the District of Massachusetts "SoClean"
action to the Western District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL
No. 3014. Plaintiff SoClean, Inc. opposed this motion and
separately moved to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring the SoClean action to MDL No. 3021, "In re SoClean,
Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation." Philips opposed the motion to vacate. Philips takes
the position that the SoClean action should be transferred to
either the Philips MDL or the SoClean MDL. Together, the motions
before the panel require that it decide whether the SoClean action
should be transferred to the Philips MDL or to the SoClean MDL, or
not transferred at all.
The actions in the Philips MDL "share factual questions arising
from Philips' recall of certain Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
(CPAP), Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure (Bi- Level PAP), and
mechanical ventilator devices on June 14, 2021." The actions in the
SoClean MDL involve "common questions of fact arising from
allegations that ozone sanitizing devices sold by SoClean cause
damage to foam and other components in CPAP machines."
The panel notes that there is a considerable degree of factual
overlap between the two MDLs. Both litigations involve factual
issues relating to "the causes and effects of the breakdown of foam
components in recalled Philips devices and the off-gassing of
volatile organic compounds from such components." Because of this
overlap, the panel centralized the SoClean litigation in the
Western District of Pennsylvania before Judge Joy Flowers Conti,
who also presides over the Philips MDL, to allow for coordinated
discovery and pretrial proceedings as appropriate.
The panel concludes that inclusion of the SoClean action in MDL No.
3021 is most appropriate. Accordingly,
Philips' motion to transfer the action to MDL No. 3014 is denied.
However, the panel acknowledges that Philips' arguments for
transfer to MDL No. 3014 have some merit. Ultimately, Judge Conti
is in the best position to structure proceedings in both MDLs as
she deems appropriate. If Judge Conti at any point determines that
the SoClean action is more appropriately included in MDL No. 3014,
she is free to suggest to the Panel that it be transferred to that
MDL, the panel opines.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3EOdBn1
MDL 3021: SoClean Action Consolidated in SoClean Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers C.A. No. 1:21−11662 (SoClean,
Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al., D. Mass.) to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and with
the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Joy Flowers Conti for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 3021,
"In re SoClean, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation."
This litigation arises out of a February 27, 2020 safety
communication issued by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA)
stating that devices marketed for cleaning Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) machines and similar respiratory devices
with ozone may expose users to excessive levels of the gas, which
can worsen chronic respiratory diseases and increase vulnerability
to respiratory infection. Plaintiffs in the actions bring various
putative statewide class actions, asserting product liability and
consumer protection claims, and seeking damages for personal
injuries, economic loss, and medical monitoring. All actions share
common questions of fact arising from allegations that ozone
sanitizing devices sold by SoClean pose potential health hazards to
users and cause damage to foam and other components in CPAP
machines.
Defendants Philips RS North America LLC and Philips North America
LLC moved to transfer the District of Massachusetts "SoClean"
action to the Western District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL
No. 3014, "In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and
Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation." Plaintiff
SoClean, Inc. opposed this motion and separately moved to vacate
the Panel's order conditionally transferring the SoClean action to
MDL No. 3021.
Philips opposed the motion to vacate. Philips takes the position
that the SoClean action should be transferred to either the Philips
MDL or the SoClean MDL. Together, the motions before the panel
require that it decide whether the SoClean action should be
transferred to the Philips MDL or to the SoClean MDL, or not
transferred at all.
The panel notes that there is a considerable degree of factual
overlap between the two MDLs. Both litigations involve factual
issues relating to "the causes and effects of the breakdown of foam
components in recalled Philips devices and the off-gassing of
volatile organic compounds from such components."
However, the panel finds that transfer to MDL No. 3021 will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation. At this time, no party in
the Philips MDL has explicitly alleged that SoClean's ozone devices
caused or exacerbated the alleged defects in Philips CPAP machines
or injury to their users. By contrast, the actions in the SoClean
MDL squarely allege that SoClean ozone devices cause damage to
components in CPAP machines—including, in a number of cases,
Philips CPAP machines, it said.
Given that coordinated discovery and other proceedings on common
issues will be going forward in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, transfer would serve the efficient resolution of
these related litigations taken as a whole.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3Le5S4g
MDL 3024: Court Denies Transfer of 4 Suits to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: ATRIUM MEDICAL CORPORATION PROLITE AND PROLOOP HERNIA
MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3024, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation denied a motion to centralize litigation of four actions
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The four actions are currently pending in the U.S. District Courts
for the Central District of California, District of New Jersey,
District of New Mexico and Western District of Wisconsin.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, the
panel concluded that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. There is no dispute that these
actions share allegations that defects in defendants' hernia mesh
products can lead to various and serious complications.
Centralization, thus, could avoid a certain amount of duplicative
discovery and eliminate the possibility of conflicting rulings on
the scope of discovery and other pretrial matters. But where, as
here, "only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent
of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that
centralization is appropriate," ruled the panel.
In arguing for centralization, plaintiffs rely heavily upon
previous decisions centralizing other hernia mesh litigations. The
panel contends that the grant of centralization does not guarantee
that centralization is appropriate in another litigation alleging
similar claims, and the panel makes each of its decisions based on
the circumstances presented by a particular litigation at the time.
At oral argument, counsel for movants argued that many more ProLite
and ProLoop cases are anticipated. The panel said it is disinclined
to take into account the mere possibility of future filings in its
centralization calculus.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3kgnccJ
MDL 3026: 16 Suits Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers seven cases from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, four from the
Central District of California and one each from the District of
Connecticut, District of District of Columbia, Middle District of
Florida, Northern District of Florida and the Middle District of
Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in "IN RE: ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ET AL., PRETERM INFANT
NUTRITION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION", MDL No. 3026.
All actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
cow's milk-based infant formula products marketed under the
"Similac" and "Enfamil" brand names have a higher propensity to
cause necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in infants born prematurely
than other, allegedly safer alternatives. Defendants Abbott
Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. move to centralize this
litigation in the District of Connecticut. Defendants Mead Johnson
& Company, LLC, and Mead Johnson Nutrition Company support the
motion.
However, the panel finds that centralization of these actions in
the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation.
Although some cases are slightly advanced, the panel is of the
opinion that the parties can obtain significant efficiencies by
placing all actions before a single judge. Centralization offers
substantial opportunity to streamline pretrial proceedings, reduce
duplicative discovery and conflicting pretrial obligations, prevent
inconsistent rulings and summary judgment motions and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3OvKVUx
MDL 3027: Panel Denies Move to Centralize Litigation of 2 Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denies a motion to centralize litigation
of two actions to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington under MDL No. 3027, IN RE: COLUMBIA RIVER DAMS CLEAN
WATER ACT LITIGATION (NO. II). The two actions are pending in the
U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Washington and the
District of Oregon involving alleged pollution of three
hydroelectric dams owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon.
In these two actions, Columbia Riverkeeper, an environmental
nonprofit organization, alleges that three dams, The Dalles Dam,
John Day Dam, and McNary Dam are discharging pollutants into the
waters of the Columbia River. The alleged pollutants include
grease, oil, and other lubricants from Kaplan turbines and wicket
gates and heat from cooling water and reservoir heating. Plaintiff
claims that these discharges are not authorized by National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, as required
by Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Although the
locations of the discharges at issue in the two cases differ to an
extent, the complaints otherwise allege identical or substantially
similar facts and request the same relief.
Two of the three dams involved are at issue in both actions,
involving common issues of fact as to the nature, sources, and
effects of the alleged pollutants. In both actions, plaintiff seeks
a declaratory judgment that the Army Corps is in violation of
Section 301(a) of the CWA, an injunction to stop the discharge of
pollutants not authorized by NPDES permits, and an injunction
requiring the Army Corps to take specific actions to evaluate and
remediate the environmental harm caused by its violations.
Discovery will overlap extensively. Issues relating to plaintiff's
standing and the availability of preliminary injunctive relief
likely will arise in both actions, presenting the risk of
inconsistent pretrial rulings. The efficiencies and conveniences to
be gained through coordination are apparent.
The panel, nevertheless, conclude that centralization is not
warranted. The panel held that centralization is not necessary for
the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. The panel emphasized that
"centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution
after considered review of all other options."
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 order is available at
https://bit.ly/3vcb9U8
MISSISSIPPI: Court Dismisses Rucker v. MDOC Without Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIO TERRELL RUCKER, Plaintiff v. PELICIA HALL MDOC
Commissioner et al., Defendants, Civil No. 1:19-CV-00901-RHWR (S.D.
Miss.), Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division,
granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Pelicia Hall,
Burl Cain, Joe Errington, Regina Reed, Anthony Beasley, Penny
Bukfin, James Cooksey, Joseph Cooley, Sheneice Hartfield Evans,
Roylandia McBride, Andrew C. Mills, and Richard Pennington, all in
their individual and official capacities.
I. Background
Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff
Rucker, a post-conviction inmate in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (MDOC), has responded to the Motion to
Dismiss by filing seven Motions requesting discovery.
The Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at South Mississippi
Correctional Institution ("SMCI") serving a life sentence of life
without parole for aggravated assault. His Amended Complaint
asserts civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The
Plaintiff alleges that gang-affiliated inmates are allowed control
over the operations at SMCI. He asserts that gang members maintain
a privileged position, use violence to intimidate and control
non-gang-affiliated inmates, and deal in contraband, including cell
phones and drugs.
The Plaintiff alleges that some correctional officers at SMCI are
corrupt and assist gang-affiliated-inmates in dealing contraband
and stand by while inmates are assaulted and intimidated by gang
members. He alleges that supervisory officials have understaffed
SMCI and failed to enforce its internal policies.
The Plaintiff maintains that he and other non-gang-affiliated
inmates are exposed to a daily threat of harm. He asserts that
MDOC's Administrative Remedy Program ("ARP") is ineffectual because
prisoner grievances are not resolved timely, and prison officials
fail to adequately investigate the grievances.
As relief, the Amended Complaint seeks "punitive damages $1 million
dollars, or if possible a mandatory parole date."
The Plaintiff attempted to pursue the case as a class action, with
a class consisting of himself and numerous other prisoners. The
Court declined to sift through his initial 34-page Complaint and
133 pages of exhibits to separate his permissible claims (claims
personal to him) from impermissible claims (claims he asserts on
behalf of others).
In an Order issued March 8, 2021, the Plaintiff was advised that
because he is not an attorney, he may only represent himself. The
Order dismissed "all claims in the Plaintiff's Complaint based on
the personal rights of others." The Plaintiff was advised that each
claim in his Amended Complaint "shall include the name of other
persons involved, dates, and places."
In response to the Court's Order granting leave to amend, the
Plaintiff filed a 43-page Amended Complaint with 120 pages of
exhibits. While the Plaintiff lists only himself as the Plaintiff,
the content of the Amended Complaint is essentially the same as the
initial Complaint.
II. Discussion
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to
dismiss an action for a party's failure to comply with a Court
order. The Plaintiff did not comply with the Court's Order to only
include in the Amended Complaint claims personal to him. Dismissal
under Rule 41(b) is nevertheless inappropriate, and the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss under Rule 41(b) is denied.
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
First, Judge Walker holds that the Plaintiff does not have standing
to sue as an individual, and he may not invoke the rights of others
or base standing on their injuries whether actual or imminent. The
standing inquiry is personal and individualized. The Plaintiff was
granted leave to cure the defects in the initial Complaint, the
Amended Complaint does not cure the defects,. Hence, the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is granted.
Second, Judge Walker finds that the Defendants in their official
capacities enjoy sovereign immunity from liability against the
Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages. Sovereign immunity limits
the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. The
protection extends to "any state agency or other political entity
that is deemed the 'alter ego' or an 'arm' of the State." The
protection is not absolute.
MDOC is an arm of the State of Mississippi, and its officers and
employees are protected from suits for money damages in their
official capacities by the Eleventh Amendment. The Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for money damages against the
Defendants, in their official capacities is granted for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
C. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Even assuming the Plaintiff had standing under Article III to
pursue the individual capacity claims against the Defendants, Judge
Walker holds that the Amended Complaint does not contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.
First, to the extent that the Plaintiff's claims are based on the
Defendants' alleged "deliberate indifference" to MDOC policies, he
states no cause of action. Second, the Plaintiff's claims premised
on the Defendants' alleged failure to properly investigate and
timely respond to grievances are indisputably meritless. Lastly,
the Plaintiff's allegation of generalized danger, devoid of
particulars, and devoid of an injury, fails to state a failure to
protect claim.
D. Plaintiff's Discovery Motions
The Plaintiff filed seven discovery Motions in response to the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Because the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery, and his
Motions are denied.
III. Conclusion
Judge Walker granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) without further leave to amend for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff does not have Article
III standing to assert the claims in the Amended Complaint. His
claims for monetary damages against the Defendants in their
official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity. Even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, the
Amended Complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face and dismissal would be appropriate under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mvpdfc6d from Leagle.com.
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Hatch Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HATCH, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. W. ALEXANDER HOLMES, ANTONIO O. GARZA, ALKA GUPTA, FRANCISCO
LORCA, MICHAEL P. RAFFERTY, JULIE E. SILCOCK, W. BRUCE TURNER,
PEGGY VAUGHAN, and MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
2022-0364 (Del. Ch., April 26, 2022) is a stockholder class action
lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff Hatch and the holders of the
common stock of MoneyGram against the members of the Board of
Directors of MoneyGram for breaching their fiduciary duties.
This action seeks an order requiring that the MoneyGram Board
comply with their fiduciary obligations. This action also seeks to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of MoneyGram by an affiliate of
Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, (MDP).
On February 15, 2022, MoneyGram announced that it had entered into
a merger agreement, pursuant to which an affiliate of MDP will
merge with and into MoneyGram, with MoneyGram surviving the merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of an affiliate of MDP. The Merger
Agreement provides that each share of MoneyGram common stock issued
and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the
Merger will be entitled to receive $11.00 in cash.
On April 21, 2022, in order to convince stockholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, Defendants authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation
of their fiduciary duties.
In particular, the Proxy allegedly contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning the Company's financial
projections -- and, most notably, the free-2-cash flows -- used by
its financial advisor, BofA Securities, Inc.
In facilitating the Proposed Transaction for inadequate
consideration and disseminating an incomplete and misleading Proxy,
each of the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, instead of
working to maximize stockholder value as required, the Defendants
agreed to hand over the Company and its future prospects to MDL for
a demonstrably unfair price and without complete disclosure of all
material information, the suit added.
The special meeting of shareholders to vote on the Proposed
Transaction will be held on May 23, 2022. It is imperative that the
material information that has been omitted from the Proxy be
disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the Special
Meeting so they can properly determine whether to vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction. Should the Proposed Transaction be
consummated before receiving this information, MoneyGram's public
stockholders may not receive the true value of their investment.
Indeed, by disseminating the materially incomplete and misleading
Proxy, the Board may subject Plaintiff, and all other public
stockholders of MoneyGram, to the irreparable injury of an
uninformed decision.
The Plaintiff was, a continuous stockholder of MoneyGram.
MoneyGram is an American cross-border P2P payments and money
transfer company based in the United States with headquarters in
Dallas, Texas. The Individual Defendants are director of the
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Palestina, Esq.
Brian Mears, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Direct: (504) 648-1843
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (646) 300-8921
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
Cell: (646) 522-4840
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3889
NATIONAL CHECK: Dienno Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TRACI DIENNO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL CHECK RESOLUTION INC., A Georgia Corporation,
SAM TULUMELLO, an individual and RHONDA TULUMELLO, an individual,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01643-JPB (N.D. Ga., April 26, 2022) seeks unpaid
overtime compensation and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
During the period beginning three years before the filing of this
Complaint through the present date, Defendants failed to compensate
Debt Collection Specialists, such as the Plaintiff, as required by
the FLSA for all hours worked over 40 per week, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were employed
by and worked for Defendants as Debt Collection Specialists.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the
following Collective Action Members:
"All current and former employees of National Check Resolution,
Inc. who worked at least 40 hours per week as a Debt Collection
Specialist anywhere in the United States, during at least one
week within the period dating back three years from the date any
such employee files a written consent to join this
lawsuit."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Lee Parks, Esq.
John L. Mays, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN, & WALBERT P.C.
75 14th Street NE, Suite 2600
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
E-mail: lparks@pcwlawfirm.com
jmays@pcwlawfirm.com
- and -
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER
HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: rmorelli@jsyc.com
NBT BANK: Court Grants Prelim. Approval to Lowe's Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER LOWE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; COLIN WOOD; MARIETTA PROPERSI; B SQUEAKY CLEAN
LLC; REGINA BOZIC, Plaintiffs, v NBT BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-1400 (MAD/ML) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class.
Judge D'Agostino finds on a preliminary basis that the class as
defined in the Settlement Agreement meets all of the requirements
for certification of a settlement class under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and applicable case law. Accordingly, she
provisionally certifies the Settlement Class, which is all current
and former customers of the Defendant with consumer checking
accounts, who were charged a Relevant Fee during the Class Period.
Relevant Fees include both APPSN Fees and Retry NSF Fees, as
detailed in the Settlement Agreement.
Judge D'Agostino provisionally appoints Christopher Lowe, Colin
Wood, Marietta Propsersi, Regina Bozic, and B Sqeaky Clean LLC as
the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. She appoints
Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Administrator will administer the Notice Program and
abide by the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement that
pertain to the Settlement Administrator.
For purposes of the Settlement Agreement, Judge D'Agostino further
provisionally finds that counsel for the Settlement Class, Jeff
Kaliel of Kaliel Gold PLLC, Lynn Toops of Cohen & Malad, and Taras
Kick of Kick Law Firm, are qualified, experienced, and skilled
attorneys capable of adequately representing the Settlement Class,
and they are provisionally approved as the Class Counsel.
Judge D'Agostino has reviewed the Settlement Agreement and finds
that the settlement memorialized therein falls within the range of
reasonableness and potential for final approval, thereby meeting
the requirements for preliminary approval, and that the Notice
should go out to the Settlement Class in the manner described in
the Settlement Agreement. She also notes that the settlement is a
non-reversionary one where no money will be returned to the
Defendant. She further notes that the settlement was arrived at
after an arm's length negotiation involving experienced counsel and
with the assistance of a neutral mediator, Eric D. Green.
For the purposes stated and defined in the Settlement Agreement,
Juduge D'Agostino sets the following dates and deadlines:
a. Notice Program Complete (including Initial Mailed Notice
and the Notice Re-Mailing Process) - 60 Days Before Final Approval
Hearing
b. Motion for Final Approval Application for Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses and Hearing Costs, and for a Service Award - 45 Days
Before Final Approval
c. Last Day to Opt Out - 30 Days Before Final Approval
Hearing
d. Last Day to Object - 30 Days Before Final Approval Hearing
e. Last Day to Respond to Objections - 15 Days Before Final
Approval Hearing
f. Final Approval Hearing - Sept. 29, 2022, at 12:00 p.m.
Judge D'Agostino approves and adopts the procedures, deadlines, and
manner governing all requests to be excluded from the Class as
stated in the Settlement Agreement, and modifies the process for
objecting to the proposed settlement, as stated in paragraph 67 of
the Settlement Agreement, as follows: "Any Settlement Class Member
who wishes to object to the Settlement, Class Counsel's application
for attorneys' fees and costs, or a Service Award for the Class
Representatives, or to appear at the Final Approval Hearing and
show cause, if any, why the Settlement should not be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, or why a
final judgment should not be entered thereon, may do so, but must
proceed as set forth in this paragraph. Only a Settlement Class
Member may file an objection. No Settlement Class Member or other
person will be heard on such matters unless they have mailed via
U.S. Mail or private courier (e.g., Federal Express) a written
objection (together with any briefs, papers, statements, or other
materials that the Settlement Class Member or other person wishes
the Court to consider) to the Clerk of the Court, Class Counsel,
NBT Bank's Counsel, and the Settlement Administrator on or before
the last day of the Opt-Out Period, as set forth in the Notices.
Any objection must state: (a) the name of the Action; (b) the
objector's full name and address; (c) all grounds for the
objection, accompanied by any legal support for the objection known
to the objector or the objector's counsel; (d) the number of times
the objector has objected to a class action settlement in the past
five years, the caption of each case in which the objector has made
such objection, and a copy of any orders related to or ruling upon
the objector's prior objections that were issued by the trial and
appellate courts in each listed case; (e) the identity of all
counsel who represent the objector, including any former or current
counsel who may be entitled to compensation for any reason related
to the objection to the Settlement or Class Counsel's application
for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and for a Service Award for
the Class Representative; (f) the identity of all counsel (if any)
representing the objector who will appear at the Final Approval
Hearing; (g) a list of all persons who will be called to testify at
the Final Approval Hearing in support of the objection; (h) a
statement confirming whether the objector intends to personally
appear and/or testify at the Final Approval Hearing, and (i) the
objector's signature (an attorney's signature is not sufficient).
The Parties must file any briefs in response to any objection on or
before 15 days prior to the date of the Final Approval Hearing.
Class Counsel and/or NBT Bank may conduct limited discovery on any
objector consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, (i) the Class Counsel will
file with the Court and serve on all Parties an affidavit or
declaration of the Settlement Administrator certifying that the
Notice Program was completed and provide the name of each
Settlement Class member who timely and properly requested exclusion
from the Settlement Class; and (ii) Defendant NBT Bank will file
with the Court and serve on all Parties a declaration certifying
that notice was provided to the appropriate government entities in
accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
All pretrial proceedings in the action are stayed and suspended
until further order of the Court, except such actions as may be
necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement, the Preliminary
Approval Order, and final approval of the Settlement Agreement and
class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mxus3btn from Leagle.com.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C., JAMES J. BILSBORROW, ESQ. --
jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs.
BRANSTETTER STRANCH, & JENNINGS PLLC, JAMES GERALD STRANCH, IV,
ESQ. -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- in Nashville, Tennessee, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
COHEN, MALAD LAW FIRM, LYNN TOOPS, ESQ. -- LTOOPS@COHENANDMALAD.COM
-- in Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
JOHNSON FIRM, CHRISTOPHER DURAN JENNINGS, ESQ., in Little Rock,
Arkansas, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC, JEFFREY D. KALIEL, ESQ., in Washington, D.C.,
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER PA, KEVIN P. RODDY, ESQ. --
kroddy@wilentz.com -- in Woodbridge, New Jersey, Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC, SOPHIA GOREN GOLD, ESQ., in Berkeley, California,
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, TARAS KICK, ESQ., in Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
BARCLAY DAMON LLP, MITCHELL J. KATZ, ESQ. -- mkatz@barclaydamon.com
-- KAYLA A. ARIAS, ESQ., TERESA M. BENNET, ESQ., in Syracuse, New
York, Attorneys for the Defendant.
BARCLAY DAMON LLP, BRIAN E. WHITELEY, ESQ. --
bwhiteley@barclaydamon.com -- in Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys
for the Defendant.
NEW SABINA: Cowman Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER COWMAN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEW SABINA
INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00141-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
a. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
under the FLSA against the Defendant on behalf of
Representative Plaintiff and others similarly situated;
b. Approving the Representative Plaintiff's proposed notice
and consent to join form;
c. Directing that notice be sent at Representative
Plaintiff’s expense by United States mail, email, and text
message to the following class:
"All current and former production employees of New Sabina
Industries, Inc. who were required to don and doff
sanitary clothing and/or anti-static footwear, but were
not paid for that time at any time during the three years
preceding the date of the filing of this Action to the
present;"
d. Directing Defendant to provide within 14 days an
electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-
delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the
definition above that includes their full names, dates of
employment, last known home addresses, personal email
addresses, and phone numbers; and
e. Directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses,
email addresses, or phone numbers are found for any
potential opt-in plaintiff.
New Sabina Industries operates in the automotive parts industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s0ImQA
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Court Approves Class Notice in Nnebe v. Daus
----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JONATHAN NNEBE, et al., Plaintiffs v. MATTHEW DAUS,
et al., Defendants. ANTHONY STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEERA
JOSHI, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 06-cv-4991 (RJS), 17-cv-7119
(RJS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the parties'
proposed Class Notice subject to modifications.
On March 1, 2022, the Court entered an order granting in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Now before the Court,
pursuant to the Class Certification Order, are the parties'
proposed class notice, plan for dissemination, and joint letter
outlining the areas of disagreement and each party's reasons for
their respective proposals. The Court also heard argument from the
parties at a conference held on April 19, 2022.
Having considered the parties' respective proposals and arguments,
Judge Sullivan concludes that: (1) the Class Notice will include an
opt-out form (as proposed by the Defendants); (2) the Class Notice
will not require potential class members to indicate, at this
stage, whether they intend to seek a damages hearing; and (3) for
the reasons stated in the Court's concurrently-filed order denying
Defendants' motion to amend the class definition, the Class Notice
will not contain the Defendants' proposed subclass notice.
In all other respects, the parties' proposed Class Notice is
approved pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B), subject to the Court's
modifications, in the form attached to the Order.
To effectuate notice to the class, Judge Sullivan ordered the
following:
a. No later than May 16, 2022, the Defendants will provide to
the Class Counsel a list in Excel format that contains all the
class members' (1) names; (2) email addresses; and (3) last known
mailing addresses. The Class Counsel will treat this information as
confidential, and such information will be used solely for purposes
of this litigation.
b. No later than May 30, 2022, the Class Counsel will
disseminate the approved Class Notice. The Class Counsel will send
the form by email to those class members for whom TLC has email
addresses and by U.S. Mail to the last known address for those
members for whom TLC does not have email addresses. Prior to any
postal mailing, the Class Counsel will update addresses through a
database, such as the National Change of Address Database
maintained by the U.S. Postal Service.
c. For Class Notices that are returned to sender, the Class
Counsel will make reasonable attempts to find a current address and
resend the returned Class Notices within 14 days of the Class
Counsel receiving the returned mail.
d. No later than May 30, 2022, the Defendants will also
publish the Class Notice on the TLC website along with translations
of the notice into Bengali, Spanish, Arabic, Urdu, French, Punjabi,
Hindi, and Simple Chinese.
e. Any requests to opt out of the class must be submitted to
the Class Counsel and postmarked or emailed no later than July 18,
2022.
f. No later than Aug. 1, 2022, the Class Counsel will exclude
all potential class members who timely opted out and file a final
Class List under seal.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ptyyy2mp from Leagle.com.
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: 2nd Amended Sched Order Vacated in Bennett
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE BENNETT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, and GERALD MCGHEE, v.
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, Case No. 17-CV-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order
vacating the Second Amended Scheduling Order, and will file a Third
Amended Scheduling Order subsequent to the order regarding
Plaintiff Bennett's motion for class certification.
On April 14, 2022, the Court heard oral arguments regarding
Plaintiff Bennett's motion for class certification.
North American Bancard is a payments technology company founded in
1992 by CEO/President Marc Gardner, it is headquartered in Troy,
Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y2f8Vh at no extra charge.[CC]
PHARM-SAVE INC: Savidge, et al., File Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA K. SAVIDGE, and
BETH A. LYNCH, individually, and as the representatives of a class
of similarly situated persons, v. PHARM-SAVE, INC., d/b/a NEIL
MEDICAL GROUP, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00186-CHB-RSE (W.D. Ky.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action;
2. defining the Classes as proposed by Plaintiff; and
3. appointing class counsel, and ordering appropriate notice
to the class members.
Pharm-Save was founded in 1984. The Company's line of business
includes wholesale distribution of prescription and proprietary
drugs and toiletries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vYAkZQ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
BRANSTETTER , STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 40208
Telephone: (502) 636-4333
Facsimile: (502) 636-4342
E-mail: peterj@bsjfirm.com
QUANTUM HEALTH: Scheduling Order Entered in Tracy Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIMEE TRACY v. QUANTUM
HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00294-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order vacatingthe preliminary
pretrial conference set for April 20, 2022, and adopting the
following schedule:
-- The parties shall exchange initial May 27, 2022
disclosures by:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings March 3, 2023
or to join additional parties
shall be filed by:
-- The motion for class certification July 31, 2023
shall be filed by:
-- Any dispositive motions shall be July 31, 2023
filed by:
Quantum Health is a consumer healthcare navigation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vNRfhA at no extra charge.[CC]
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Consolidated ERISA Suit in NJ Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that it is facing two
putative class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
New Jersey in 2020 against the company and other defendants with
respect to the company's 401(k) plan.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of
the 401(k) plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the
expenses and risks of plan investment options, allowing
unreasonable administration expenses to be charged to plan
participants, and selecting and retaining high cost and
poor-performing investments. In October 2020, the court
consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption "In re: Quest
Diagnostics Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Litigation" and plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
In May 2021, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a diagnostic information services
business, providing diagnostic information services through its
nationwide network of laboratories, patient service centers and
phlebotomists in physician offices and its connectivity resources,
including call centers and mobile paramedics, nurses and other
health and wellness professionals.
RADIUS GLOBAL: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Okten Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE OKTEN, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, v. RADIUS GLOBAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:22-cv-00782-ES-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor
entered pretrial scheduling order as follows:
-- Class certification and fact Feb. 14, 2023
discovery is to remain open
through:
-- Any motion to add new parties, Sept. 14, 2022
whether by amended or third-party
complaint, must be electronically
filed no later than:
-- Any motion to amend pleadings Sept. 14, 2022
must be electronically filed
no later than:
-- Parties may serve interrogatories May 16, 2022
limited to 25 single questions
including subparts, on or before:
-- The parties may serve requests May 16, 2022
for production of documents on or
before:
Radius Global provides debt recovery services and customer contact
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kn5mzI at no extra charge.[CC]
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Doyle, Filbert & Laborers Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIM DOYLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, MATTHEW FILBERT, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, LABORERS'
DISTRICT COUNCIL and CONTRACTORS' PENSION FUND OF OHIO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. REATA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., J. WARREN HUFF, MANMEET
S. SONI, and COLIN J. MEYER, Defendants, Civil Action Nos.
4:21-CV-00987, 4:22-CV-00012, 4:22-CV-00041 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos
L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division, granted the motions to consolidate.
I. Introduction
Pending before the Court are several competing motions to
consolidate, motions to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and motions
for approval of lead plaintiffs' selection of lead and liaison
counsel filed in the captioned cases. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(the "PLSRA"), Judge Mazzant's Order addresses solely the issue of
consolidation, and the Court reserves ruling on the appointment of
lead plaintiffs and approval of selection of lead counsel and
liaison counsel for a subsequent order.
Consolidation is sought in each of the above lawsuits by the
following Plaintiffs and Movants:
a. Donald Potts, filed on Feb. 19, 2022 (Case No.
4:21-CV-00987);
b. UMC Benefit Board, Inc.; US Equity Fund-P Series, a series
of the Wespath Funds Trust; US Equity Index Fund-P Series, a series
of the Wespath Funds Trust; Wespath Institutional Investments LLC;
US Equity Fund-I Series, a series of the Wespath Funds Trust; and
US Equity Index Fund-I Series, a series of the Wespath Funds Trust
(collectively, Wespath), filed on Feb. 18, 2022 (Case No.
4:21-CV-00987) and March 21, 2022 (Case No. 4:22-CV-00012; Case No.
4:22-CV-00041).;
c. Laborers' District Council; Contractors' Pension Funds of
Ohio; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793;
Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario; and IBEW Local 353
Pension Plan (collectively, the Labor Funds), filed on Feb. 18,
2022 (Case No. 4:21-CV-00987; Case No. 4:22-CV-00012; Case No.
4:22-CV-00041); and
d.Duane Olcsvary, filed on Feb. 23, 2022 (ase No. 4:21-CV-987;
Case No. 4:22-CV-00012; Case No. 4:22-CV-00041).
II. Background
On March 1, 2021, Defendant Reata announced that it had submitted a
New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for bardoxolone methyl. If approved, bardoxolone would
become "the first therapy specifically indicated for treatment of
[chronic kidney disease] caused by Alport's syndrome." But on Dec.
8, 2021, the FDA's Advisory Committee unanimously voted against
approval of Reata's application.
The denial came as a shock to Reata's investors. Back in November
of 2016, "Reata told investors during an earnings conference call
that 'we have received clear guidance from [the] FDA about
requirements for approval of bardoxolone in Alport syndrome.'" Then
in November of 2020, Reata announced that the results of a
multi-year study on the efficacy of bardoxolone were "positive,"
and "represented the first time that an investigational medicine
had shown a significant clinical benefit in chronic kidney
disease." As far as investors were aware, bardoxolone worked --
"the data" provided by Reata "suggested that bardoxolone treatment
had beneficial long-term effects on kidney function in patients
with Alport syndrome."
The bigger shock, however, was revealed within FDA briefing
documents released on Dec. 6, 2021. In stark contrast to Reata's
prior representations, investors discovered that the FDA "had
repeatedly voiced concerns about the validity of the study design
-- specifically, that bardoxolone's pharmacodynamic effect on
kidney function would make it difficult to assess the effectiveness
of the drug." The documents further revealed that these concerns
were communicated to Reata as early as March 1, 2021. Yet, Reata
never attempted to relay these concerns to its investors.
Relying on Reata's representations, investors bought and acquired
millions in Reata shares and securities. Wespath "purchased 114,030
Reata shares with a total expenditure of $17,184,758.77"; Potts and
the Labor Funds purchased 12,000 and 12,289 shares of Reata common
stock, respectively; and Olcsvary invested thousands in Reata
securities. Reata's initial share price on Nov. 10, 2020 closed at
$184.62 per share. But after the FDA released its briefing
documents, "Reata's stock price plummeted 37%, falling from $78.69
per share to close at $48.92 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume." Then, when the FDA denied Reata's application, shares fell
even further "to close at $29.11 per share -- down more than 63%
from the opening of trading on De. 6, 2021," just 48 hours
earlier.
As a result, millions invested in Reata was now lost, and the value
of Reata's shares mere paperweight in comparison to their once
respected high. Wespath's losses alone totaled over $10,279,158.72.
The Labor Funds "incurred losses of over $662,000." Potts "over
$558,766 in losses," and Olcsvary over "$164,171 on his
transactions in Reata securities."
Beginning on Dec. 20, 2021, investors filed several class action
lawsuits against Reata; Reata's Chief Executive Officer, J. Warren
Huff; Reata's CFO Manmeet S. Soni; and Reata's Chief Medical
Officer, President, and Chairman of the Board, Colin J. Meyer.
Three lawsuits are relevant to the present motion: 4:21-CV-987
filed on Dec. 20, 2021 (the "Doyle action"); 4:22-CV-12 filed on
Jan. 7, 2022 (the "Filbert action"); and 4:22-CV-41 filed on Jan.
20, 2022 (the "Laborers' action").
Each lawsuit alleges the same material facts and allegations --
that all the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and that individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Doyle
and Filbert actions allege the relevant class period as between
Nov. 9, 2020 and Dec. 8, 2021, and the Laborers' action alleges the
relevant class period as between Nov. 14, 2016 and Dec. 6, 2021.
All lawsuits sue on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or acquired Reata securities or sold Reata options during the
alleged class period.
In February and March 2022, the investors filed competing motions
to consolidate, motions to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and
motions for approval of lead plaintiffs' selection of lead and
liaison counsel in all three cases. None of the Plaintiffs or
Movants stand in opposition to consolidation.
III. Analysis
In the securities litigation, Judge Mozzant is persuaded that all
the Plaintiffs and the Movants assert a right to relief arising out
of a common series of alleged transactions and occurrences and that
the determination of all the Plaintiffs' claims will involve common
questions of law and fact. The cases are based upon the same
alleged misconduct, allege the same class definition, and assert
the same claims. Additionally, each case is brought on behalf of
classes of investors who purchased, acquired, or held Reata shares,
and "class action shareholder lawsuits are the quintessential type
of cases in which consolidation is appropriate."
Further, Judge Mozzant holds that consolidation is not unworkable
simply because the Laborers' action names different defendants from
the Doyle and Filbert actions -- rather, "the fact that a defendant
may be involved in one case and not the other is not sufficient to
avoid consolidation." This is true especially where, despite such
differences, "there are also substantial commonalities, and the
cases involve 'overlapping defendants and a common core of facts
and legal issues." Such is the case here, as all the lawsuits
assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against substantially overlapping defendants.
Similarly, the Court may grant consolidation even though the
Laborers' action alleges a differing class period from the Doyle
and Filbert actions. Differing class periods, without more, "will
not defeat consolidation or create a conflict."
Moreover, while these differences do exist between the cases, the
record contains no indication that any party will suffer prejudice
from consolidation. To the contrary, consolidation would conserve
judicial resources and reduce the time and cost of handling the
cases separately.
Under such circumstances, Judge Mozzant rules that consolidation is
appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
Accordingly, he finds that consolidation is appropriate in the
case.
IV. Conclusion
The Plaintiffs' Motions to Consolidate are granted. Therefore, Case
Nos. 4:21-CV-00987, 4:22-CV-00012, and 4:22-CV-00041 are ordered
consolidated, to be held before Judge Amos L. Mazzant under Case
No. 4:21-CV-00987.
The Clerk of the Court and Counsel are directed to docket all
future filings in the listed matters under Case No. 4:21-CV-00987.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2u4h67 from
Leagle.com.
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wespath Named Lead Plaintiff in Doyle Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIM DOYLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. REATA PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., J. WARREN HUFF, MANMEET S. SONI, and COLIN J. MEYER,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-00987 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos
L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division, granted Wespath's Motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel.
The Motion was filed by UMC Benefit Board, Inc.; US Equity Fund-P
Series, a series of the Wespath Funds Trust; US Equity Index Fund-P
Series, a series of the Wespath Funds Trust; Wespath Institutional
Investments LLC; US Equity Fund-I Series, a series of the Wespath
Funds Trust; and US Equity Index Fund-I Series, a series of the
Wespath Funds Trust (collectively, Wespath).
I. Introduction
Pending before the Court are the following competing motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff:
(1) Motion of Donald Potts as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel;
(2) Motion of Wespath as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead
Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel;
(3) Motion of Laborers' District Council; Contractors' Pension
Funds of Ohio; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
No. 793; Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario; and IBEW Local
353 Pension Plan (collectively, the Labor Funds) as Lead Plaintiff
and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel; and
(4) Motion of Duane Olcsvary as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel.
II. Background
On March 1, 2021, Defendant Reata announced that it had submitted a
New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for bardoxolone methyl. If approved, bardoxolone would
become "the first therapy specifically indicated for treatment of
chronic kidney disease caused by Alport's syndrome." But on Dec. 8,
2021, the FDA's Advisory Committee unanimously voted against
approval of Reata's application.
The denial came as a shock to Reata's investors. Back in November
of 2016, "Reata told investors during an earnings conference call
that 'we have received clear guidance from the FDA about
requirements for approval of bardoxolone in Alport syndrome.'" Then
in November of 2020, Reata announced that the results of a
multi-year study on the efficacy of bardoxolone were "positive" and
"represented the first time that an investigational medicine had
shown a significant clinical benefit in chronic kidney disease."
As far as investors were aware, bardoxolone worked -- "the data"
provided by Reata "suggested that bardoxolone treatment had
beneficial long-term effects on kidney function in patients with
Alport syndrome."
The bigger shock, however, was revealed within FDA briefing
documents released on Dec. 6, 2021. In stark contrast to Reata's
prior representations, investors discovered that the FDA "had
repeatedly voiced concerns about the validity of the study design
-- specifically, that bardoxolone's pharmacodynamic effect on
kidney function would make it difficult to assess the effectiveness
of the drug." As a result, the FDA "did not believe that the data
demonstrated that bardoxolone was effective in slowing the loss of
kidney function in patients with Alport syndrome or in reducing the
risk of progression to kidney failure." The documents further
revealed that these concerns were communicated to Reata as early as
March 1, 2021. Yet, Reata never attempted to relay these concerns
to its investors.
Relying on Reata's representations, investors bought and acquired
millions in Reata shares and securities. Wespath "purchased 114,030
Reata shares with a total expenditure of $17,184,758.77"; Potts and
the Labor Funds purchased 12,000 and 12,289 shares of Reata common
stock, respectively; and Olcsvary invested thousands in Reata
securities. Reata's initial share price on Nov. 10, 2020 closed at
$184.62 per share. But after the FDA released its briefing
documents, "Reata's stock price plummeted 37%, falling from $78.69
per share to close at $48.92 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume." Then, when the FDA denied Reata's application, shares fell
even further "to close at $29.11 per share -- down more than 63%
from the opening of trading on Dec. 6, 2021," just 48 hours
earlier.
As a result, millions invested in Reata was now lost, and the value
of Reata's shares mere paperweight in comparison to their once
respected high. Wespath's losses alone totaled over $10,279,158.72.
The Labor Funds "incurred losses of over $662,000," Potts "over
$558,766 in losses," and Olcsvary over "$164,171 on his
transactions in Reata securities."
Beginning on Dec. 20, 2021, investors filed several class action
lawsuits against Reata; Reata's CEO, J. Warren Huff; Reata's CFO
Manmeet S. Soni ; and Reata's Chief Medical Officer, President, and
Chairman of the Board, Colin J. Meyer. Upon motion of various
plaintiffs, the Court consolidated the lawsuits into the captioned
matter on April 22, 2022.
The Plaintiffs collectively allege that all the Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and that the individual
Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiffs sue on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or acquired Reata securities or sold Reata options during
the alleged class period. Potts, Olcsvary, and Wespath assert a
class period of Nov. 9, 2020 through Dec. 8, 2021, while the Labor
Funds assert a class period of Nov. 14, 2016 through Dec. 6, 2021.
On Feb. 18, 2022, Potts, Wespath, the Labor Funds, and Olcsvary
each filed separate motions for their appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. On March 4,
2022, both the Labor Funds and Olcsvary filed notices of
non-opposition to the appointment of Wespath as lead plaintiff,
acknowledging that Wespath holds the largest financial interest in
the action. On the same day, Potts filed a response to the various
competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff. In his
response, Potts acknowledges that Wespath holds the largest
financial interest and asks that he be appointed lead plaintiff
only in the event "the Court determines that Wespath is not 'the
most adequate plaintiff.'" Thus, no movant stands in opposition to
the appointment of Wespath as lead plaintiff or the approval of
Wespath's selection of lead and liaison counsel. Wespath
subsequently filed a reply and a memorandum in support of its
appointment.
III. Analysis
Though Wespath's appointment as lead plaintiff is unopposed, the
Court "has an independent duty to ensure the PSLRA's statutory
requirements are met." Accordingly, Judge Mazzant considers the
following issues: (1) whether all potential lead plaintiffs have
completed the required certification; (2) whether notice of suit
was timely filed; and (3) which plaintiff is the most adequate to
serve as lead plaintiff, taking into consideration whether the
motions for lead plaintiff were timely filed, the plaintiff with
the largest financial interest in the litigation, and whether that
plaintiff satisfies Rule 23's typicality and adequacy
requirements.
Judge Mazzant opines that all the remaining potential lead
plaintiffs -- Potts, the Labor Funds, and Olcsvary -- stand
unopposed to Wespath's appointment as lead plaintiff, and offer no
argument or evidence to rebut the presumption. Further, no other
potential class members have attempted to rebut the presumption.
Thus, the presumption stands and Judge Mazzant approves Wespath's
appointment as lead plaintiff.
Wespath seeks to appoint two law firms as counsel: Kirby McInerney
LLP as Lead Counsel for the class, and Steckler Wayne Cochran
Cherry PLLC ("SWCC") as Local Liaison Counsel for the class. Judge
Mazzant has reviewed the background and experience of each firm and
is satisfied that Kirby McInerney and SWCC could adequately
represent the Plaintiff class in the action. Both law firms have
substantial experience in securities class action lawsuits and
possess the resources necessary to pursue the action. Further, the
record shows no basis to infer that Kirby McInerney or SWCC will
not adequately represent the putative class. Therefore, Judge
Mazzant approves Wespath's selection of Kirby McInerney as Lead
Counsel and SWCC as Local Liaison Counsel.
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiff Wespath's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Selection of Counsel is granted. Therefore, Wespath is
appointed as the Lead Plaintiff, Kirby McInerney LLP is appointed
as the Lead Counsel, and Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry PLLC is
appointed as the Local Liaison Counsel.
Plaintiff Donald Potts' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
and Approval of Selection of Counsel, Plaintiff the Labor Funds'
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection
of Counsel, and Plaintiff Duane Olcsvary's Motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel are denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vuv7pt3 from
Leagle.com.
REILY & COMPANY: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Ortega Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ORTEGA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. WM. B. REILY &
COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10293-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge entered an civil case management plan and scheduling order as
follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be July 18, 2022
completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production May 20, 2022
of document to be served by:
-- Depositions to be completed by: Aug. 18, 2022
-- All expert discovery shall be Aug. 18, 2022
completed no later than:
Reily manufactures and markets coffee and tea brands as well as
mayonnaise, cake flour, sauces, chili seasonings, salad dressings,
and brownie mixes throughout the U.S. and, for select products,
internationally.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vn6IpF at no extra charge.[CC]
RELIANT HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cooper Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. RELIANT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
148333670 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 25, 2022) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Reliant Holdings, Inc. provides media and communication services.
The Company offers direct marketing, e-commerce solutions, online
business, and other related activities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 Email:
scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
SALAS CONCRETE: Final Hearing of Cavazos Settlement Still on May 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN CAVAZOS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALAS CONCRETE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00062-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
rejects the parties' joint stipulation to continue the final
approval hearing of their settlement.
The final approval hearing is currently set for May 23, 2022.
On Jan. 6, 2021, Plaintiff Cavazos filed a motion in the Court for
conditional certification and preliminary approval of a class and
collective action settlement. On Feb. 18, 2022, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and
conditional class certification. In its order granting preliminary
approval, the Court set a hearing for final approval of the
proposed settlement for May 23, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge
Drozd. On April 20, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation now
pending before the Court seeking to continue the final approval
hearing until at least 90 days after April 20, 2022.
In their stipulation, the parties explain that the Defendant's
counsel did not send notice of the proposed settlement to the
appropriate federal and state officials, as is required by the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1715(b), until April 20, 2022. Under Section 1715(b), each
defendant participating in the proposed settlement must serve
notice of that settlement upon certain state and federal officials
within ten days of the proposed settlement being filed in court,
which in the case, would have been Jan. 16, 2021. In addition to
requiring notice, CAFA also requires, as the parties correctly note
in their stipulation, that "an order giving final approval of a
proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days after"
the appropriate federal and state officials are served with
notice.
Thus, because the Defendant did not timely serve the required
notice upon the appropriate federal and state officials under
Section 1715(b), the parties request in their pending stipulation
that the Court continues the final approval hearing in the case
until July 19, 2022 or any date thereafter "to provide the full 90
calendar days from the mailing of the Notice to run prior to the
hearing date."
Although the Court cannot grant final approval of the class and
collective action settlement in the case until at least July 19,
2022, 90 days from when the Defendant mailed notice to the
appropriate state and federal officials on April 20, 2022, Judge
Shubb may nonetheless hold a final approval hearing before the
90-day period under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(d) concludes.
Moreover, he says, the settlement administrator in the action was
required to send a notice packet to each class and FLSA member in
this action no later than 28 days after the entry of the Court's
Feb. 18, 2022 order granting preliminary approval of the proposed
class and collective action settlement. That deadline has long
since passed, and the Court assumes that the notice packets --
which included the date and time for the final approval hearing set
by the Court -- have been sent as directed by the Court.
Notably, in their stipulation, the parties do not address how they
would notify the class and collective action members of a new final
approval hearing date, nor do they propose sending class and
collective action members an amended notice packet reflecting a new
final approval hearing date. Because the Court may hold a final
approval hearing during the 90-day CAFA notice period and the
parties have not addressed how class and collective action members
would be informed of a new final approval hearing date, Judge Drozd
sees no reason to continue the final approval hearing currently set
for May 23, 2022.
Accordingly, the parties' joint stipulation to continue the final
approval hearing is rejected. The final approval hearing remains
set for May 23, 2022. If the Court finds that the approval of the
parties' class and collective action settlement is justified, it
will hold any order granting final approval of the settlement in
abeyance until at least July 19, 2022, 90 days from when the
Defendant's counsel provided the requisite notice under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1715(d).
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2fshzd8p from Leagle.com.
SAMBUCA HOUSTON: McLemore Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH CALLIE MCLEMORE, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. SAMBUCA HOUSTON, L.P., Case No.
4:22-cv-01343 (S.D. Tex., April 26, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff Callie and its other hourly
employees the minimum wage and overtime compensation due to them
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant accomplished this underpayment by requiring its
hourly employees to log in under multiple job codes during the same
week but failed to aggregate those hours when determining whether
an employee worked overtime in a given week. The Defendant also
violated the FLSA's tip credit provisions by paying a tip credit
reduced minimum wage without abiding by the statutory prerequisites
to claim the tip credit. The Defendant required Plaintiff and other
employees to share their tips with non-tip eligible employees. The
Defendant also failed to provide notice to its employees of its
intention to rely on the tip credit, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from September of 2019 to
September of 2021 in a of positions, including bartender, banquet
captain, catering assistant, and event lead.
The Class Members are the current and former hourly employees that
worked for the Defendant in the three years prior to the
institution of this action.
Sambuca Houston operates two restaurants, under the trade names
Sambuca and Lawless, and the Crystal Ball Room at 909 Texas Avenue
in Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
Texas State Bar No. 24083560
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8630
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Faces Davis Civil Rights Suit Over Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY P. DAVIS, on behalf himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SELECTQUOTE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00185 (W.D.N.C., April 26, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Action of 1964 by
applying a certain facially neutral employment policy that had and
continues to have, a disparate impact upon African-Americans in
violation of the Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff satisfied his obligation
to exhaust his administrative remedy on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated individuals by timely filing a Charge of
Discrimination against Defendant with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on June 22, 2021, alleging
discrimination on the basis of race.
On January 26, 2022, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue but
due to a glitch in their system, it was not received by the
Plaintiff until April 4, 2022.
On or about January 15, 2021, the Plaintiff applied for the
position of senior sales agent with Defendant at its Charlotte,
North Carolina location.
The Defendant is a broker of various forms of insurance and
conducts its operations throughout the country.
Following his successful interview, the Plaintiff was extended a
conditional offer of employment from Defendant on or about January
21, 2021. In connection with his conditional offer, Plaintiff was
asked to complete certain questionnaires in order to complete a
background investigation.
The Plaintiff provided truthful and complete responses in
connection with the completion of his background investigation. The
Plaintiff promptly completed and returned his responses to the
questionnaire and provided his written consent for Defendant to
perform a background investigation.
Among the information disclosed by Plaintiff was a misdemeanor
conviction for possession of marijuana in 2006, as well as a
conviction for being an accomplice to common law battery in 2007.
Since 2007, Plaintiff has had no arrests or convictions for
misdemeanors or felonies.
After receiving Plaintiff’s truthfully completed questionnaire,
the Defendant revoked its conditional offer of employment to him
for the senior sales agent position.
In doing so, the Defendant applied an established facially neutral
policy of revoking conditional offers of employment from
individuals who disclosed felony convictions based on the internal
determination that they would be "unlikely" to obtain the necessary
licensing from the states in which the applicant would do business
and/or would not be approved by those providers for whom Defendant
sells insurance products, says the suit.
The Defendant applied the foregoing established policy on a
nationwide basis. While Plaintiff truthfully disclosed the
above-referenced convictions within his completed questionnaire,
his background check report did not show any convictions on his
record. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Harman, Esq.
HARMAN LAW, PLLC
16507 Northcross Drive, Suite B
Huntersville, NC 28078
Telephone: (704) 885-5550
Facsimile: (704) 885-5551
E-mail: michael@harmanlawnc.com
SPOKEO INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Kellman's Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied Spokeo's motion to dismiss the case,
AVIVA KELLMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. SPOKEO, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO (N.D. Cal.).
I. Background
Defendant Spokeo runs a website that provides information about
particular individuals aggregated from various sources. To
advertise paid subscriptions to the site, Spokeo uses "teasers" --
profiles of real people with some information redacted. The
Plaintiffs in the putative class action claim that, when Spokeo
used teasers of them, it violated their rights of publicity and
appropriated their names and likenesses in violation of California,
Ohio, and Indiana law.
Each of the Plaintiffs alleges that he or she was harmed by
Spokeo's business practices. None of them used or subscribed to
Spokeo's services. Yet each of their information was used in one of
Spokeo's "teaser profile" ads. In each case, Spokeo publicly
displays information about the Plaintiff, some of it redacted. But,
like the teasers discussed, it also claims to have additional
information about each Plaintiff. Each named Plaintiff alleges that
he or she has not committed a felony and is not a sex offender.
The Plaintiffs filed suit in the Court in November 2021, claiming
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. They seek to
represent a nationwide class of "all people in the United States
who are not Spokeo members and whose names and personal information
Spokeo incorporated in teaser profiles used to promote its Spokeo
memberships." And they seek to represent two subclasses, one of
Indiana residents and one of Ohio residents. Newell is a citizen of
Ohio and Fry is a citizen of Indiana.
The Plaintiffs bring seven claims: (1) violation of California's
right of publicity statute, Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344; (2)
appropriation of a name or likeness under California law; (3)
violation of Indiana's right of publicity statute, Ind. Code
Section 32-36-1; (4) appropriation of a time or likeness under
Indiana law; (5) violation of Ohio's right of publicity statute,
Ohio Rev. Code Section 2741; (6) appropriation of a name or
likeness under Ohio law; and (7) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et
seq. After the parties stipulated to several extensions of time to
respond to the Complaint, Spokeo moved to dismiss in February
2022.
II. Discussion
Spokeo moves to dismiss on five grounds: (1) the Plaintiffs lack
Article III standing, (2) the claims are not adequately pleaded,
(3) the claims are barred by the First Amendment, (4) relief to the
Plaintiffs would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, and (5) the
claims are barred by the Communications Decency Act ("CDA").
Judge Orrick finds that none of these arguments has merit. He
explains that district courts have come out on both sides of many
of the issues in the case, but he concludes that the Plaintiffs'
claims are actionable. He says, the Plaintiffs have Article III
standing to sue for these alleged violations. They have adequately
pleaded that their names, likenesses, and related information have
commercial value and were being used for a commercial purpose. The
teasers are not subject to statutory exceptions for newsworthiness
or public interest information. Spokeo is not immune from liability
under the Communications Decency Act. Enforcing these rights does
not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. And Spokeo's alleged
conduct is not shielded by the First Amendment.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Orrick denied the motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/7zz9wdav from Leagle.com.
SPORTS RESEARCH: Capaci Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CAPACI, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440-FMO-FFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order granting
in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification:
1. certifying the following classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)
with respect to plaintiff’s claims under the CLRA, FAL,
UCL, breach of express warranty and negligent:
-- Nationwide Class
"All persons who purchased Sports Research Cambogia
that was labeled "weight management" and/or "appetite
suppression" in the United States since April 26, 2015.
The class is limited to those who purchased the Product
for personal and household use, and not for resale, and
who did not received a refund or return the Product;"
-- California Sub-Class
"All persons who purchased Sports Research Cambogia
that was labeled "weight management" and/or "appetite
suppression" ("Product") the State of California since
April 26, 2015. The class is limited to those who
purchased the Product for personal and household use,
and not for resale, and who did not receive a refund or
return the Product;"
Excluded from the class are defendant, as well as its
officers, employees, agents or affiliates, and any
judge who presides over this action, as well as all of
defendant’s past and present employees, officers and
directors;
2. appointing Cynthia Ford as the representative of the
certified class;
3. appointing the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as class
counsel;
4. denying the Motion without prejudice as to the Rule 23(b)
(2) class and denying with prejudice as to plaintiff's
implied warranty claim; and
5. denying the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's
Expert Charlene L. Podlipna and Motion to Exclude
Plaintiff's Expert Dr. David B. Allison.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, violations of California's False Advertising Law,
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of
express warranties, breach of implied warranties, and negligent
misrepresentation.
The Plaintiff alleges that SR "markets 'Sports Research Cambogia',
a dietary supplement that Defendant falsely claims is an effective
aid in 'weight management' and 'appetite control,' despite the fact
that the Product's only purportedly active ingredients,
Hydroxycitric Acid (HCA) and extra virgin organic coconut oil, are
scientifically proven to be incapable of providing such weight loss
benefits."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vmRGAj
at no extra charge.[CC]
ST. LOUIS, MO: Bid for Leave to Amend Cody Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CODY, et al., individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ST.
LOUIS, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-2707-AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend.
I. Background
In the putative class action against the City, seven named
Plaintiffs allege that they endured inhumane conditions while
detained at the City's Medium Security Institution. At the outset
of the case, two of the seven named Plaintiffs filed under the
pseudonyms "John Doe" and "John Roe." The unnamed Plaintiffs
explained in the complaint that they brought their claims
anonymously due to "fear of retaliation, reputational harm, and
social stigma," given that they still had pending criminal cases in
the City at that time. However, neither sought permission from this
Court to proceed under a pseudonym.
As part of their Rule 26 disclosures produced in August 2018
(approximately nine months after the complaint was filed),
Plaintiffs Doe and Roe disclosed to the City their true identities
as Callion Barnes and Eddie Williams, respectively. And in the
approximately four years that have passed since then, Barnes and
Williams have participated actively in the litigation by answering
interrogatories, submitting to depositions, and filing motions in
the Court, all with no objection by the City.
The City did not object to these Plaintiffs' anonymous pleading
until September 2021, when the City raised this argument as part of
their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In
that opposition brief, the City argued that Barnes and Williams
(who were identified by name in Plaintiffs' class certification
motion) were inadequate to serve as class representatives because
they had never sought leave from the Court to proceed anonymously.
In response, these Plaintiffs indicated that they would seek leave
to either retroactively proceed anonymously or to amend their
complaint to substitute the pseudonyms with the parties' true
names.
On Dec. 27, 2021, the Court denied class certification but also
directed that any motion for leave to attempt to cure any pleading
defect regarding Plaintiffs Doe and Roe be filed within 14 days of
the Court's Order. In response, the Plaintiffs have filed the
instant motion for leave to amend.
The City opposes the Plaintiffs' motion to amend. The City argues
that, because they failed to secure leave to proceed anonymously,
neither Barnes nor Williams validly commenced an action in the
Court. The City further argues that Barnes and Williams should not
be permitted to join the action by way of amendment at this late
stage of litigation.
II. Discussion
A. Jurisdictional Implications of Rule 10(a)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that "the title of
the complaint must name all the parties." The Rules include no
provision enabling a plaintiff to proceed anonymously. However,
federal courts have permitted plaintiffs to proceed using a
fictitious name when it is justified by the circumstances. The
party seeking to proceed anonymously must request permission from
the district court to do so.
It is undisputed that no such request was made by Barnes or
Williams in the case. But regardless of whether the Court had
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Doe and Roe at the outset, Judge
Fleissig holds that there appears to be no dispute that, if she
were to grant the instant motion for leave to amend, Barnes and
Williams will have commenced a valid action over which the Court
has jurisdiction at least as of the date of the Court's Order
granting leave. Thus, assuming that the Plaintiffs can satisfy the
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16
regarding leave to amend in the case, the Plaintiffs' prior failure
to request permission to proceed anonymously does not operate as a
jurisdictional bar.
B. Leave to File an Amended Complaint Under Rules 15 and 16
Although Barnes and Williams may not have been diligent in seeking
permission from the Court to proceed anonymously, Judge Fleissig
holds that they have otherwise complied with the obligations of the
Court's scheduling orders, including by actively participating in
discovery throughout the progression of this case. They also
complied with the Court's more specific deadline by which to file
any motion for leave to attempt to cure the pleading defect with
respect to the Doe and Roe Plaintiffs. Thus, Judge Fleissig
concludes that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient
diligence to satisfy Rule 16 and that leave to amend is warranted
under Rule 15(a).
However, Judge Fleissig finds that the City correctly notes that
the proposed amended complaint continues to assert claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief which the Court previously
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The proposed
amended complaint likewise continues to name Vincent Grover as a
Plaintiff, despite his dismissal from this case for failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order.
For the reasons described in the Court's prior Orders, Judge
Flessig will deny the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend in
part, on the basis of futility, to the extent the proposed amended
complaint seeks to reinstate their claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief and Plaintiff Vincent Grover's claims.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Flessig granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend, as she set forth. The Clerk
of Court will detach and file ECF No. 306-3 at the Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint, which will be deemed limited in the
manner set forth.
The Clerk of Court will terminate Plaintiffs John Doe and John Roe,
and will add Callion Barnes and Eddie Williams as party Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff Vincent Grover will remain terminated.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/hc7w7bh8 from Leagle.com.
STRYTEN ENERGY: Rivera Files Bid for Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL RIVERA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v
STRYTEN ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-2056-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
A. Conditionally certifying the proposed class;
B. Approving of the use of U.S. Mail and email to distribute
Plaintiff’s proposed Notice and Consent to Join;
C. Approving the form and content for use in providing notice
to the potential collective members;
D. Directing the Defendants to produce the names and last
known mailing addresses and email addresses of each
potential opt-in plaintiff in an electronically importable
and malleable electronic format, such as Excel, within 7
days after this Court's Order is entered;
E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin seven
days after the date on which Defendants produce the names
and contact information for the class members, in which
class members may submit Consents to Join this lawsuit as
opt-in plaintiffs;
F. Granting the Plaintiff leave to send a follow-up reminder
email, or, alternatively, U.S. Mail, beginning 30 days
after the opt-in period begins, to potential plaintiffs
who have not responded to the Notice; and
G. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
all other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled,
whether specifically prayed for or not.
Stryten provides stored energy solutions for the transportation,
motive, stationary and military sectors.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vRbNFI
at no extra charge.[CC]
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: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven T. Durick, Esq.
Tyler S. Smith, Esq.
PEDDICORD WHARTON, LLP
6800 Lake Drive, Ste. 125
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Telephone: (515) 243-2100
E-mail: steved@peddicord.law
tyler@peddicord.law
- and -
John T. Stembridge, Esq.
Lisa D. Taylor, Esq.
Stembridge Taylor LLC
2951 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 604-2691
E-mail: john@stembridgetaylor.com
lisa@stembridgetaylor.com
TAILING LLC: Hulac Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA, NJWHL & PMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA HULAC, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
TAILING, LLC, TAILING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and TAILING INSPECTION
AND SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02406 (D.N.J., April 26, 2022)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and on behalf of all day
rate workers who worked for the Defendants who were paid a day rate
with no overtime compensation (the Day Rate Workers or Putative
Class Members) in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.
Ms. Hulac worked for Tailing as a field accountant in Princeton,
New Jersey and Austin, Pennsylvania. Hulac was employed for Tailing
from approximately January 2019 through March 2020.
Hulac and the Day Rate Workers regularly worked for Tailing in
excess of 40 hours each week, but Tailing did not pay them overtime
as required by federal law, New Jersey law, and Pennsylvania law.
Instead, Tailing improperly paid Hulac and the Day Rate Workers a
flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime
compensation, says the suit.
This collective action and Rule 23 class action seeks to recover
the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these workers.
The class of similarly situated employees sought to be certified as
a collective action is defined as:
All workers employed by—or working on behalf of -- Tailing
who
were paid a day rate at any time in the last three years (the
FLSA Day Rate Workers).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor Montgomery
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tmontgomery@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
TONAWANDA VALLEY: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Compton Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALISIA COMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TONAWANDA VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00314-JLS (W.D.N.Y., April 25, 2022) is
a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief from the Defendant, arising from its improper
assessment and collection of $30 overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on
transactions that did not actually overdraw checking accounts and
the improper assessment of multiple fees on an item.
According to the complaint, when the Defendant reprocesses an
electronic payment item, automated clearing house ("ACH item"), or
check for payment after it was initially rejected for insufficient
funds, the Defendant chooses to treat it as a new and unique item
that is subject to yet another fee. But the Defendant's contract
never states that this counterintuitive and deceptive result could
be possible and, in fact, says nothing at all about how overdraft
fees or insufficient funds fees ("NSF fees") are assessed.
The Defendant allegedly exercises its discretion in its own favor
and to the prejudice of Plaintiff and its other customers when it
reprocesses an item when it knows a customer's account lacks funds
and then charges additional fees on the same item and when it
assesses fees on transactions that do not overdraw the account.
Further, the Defendant abuses the power it has over customers and
their bank accounts and acts contrary to their reasonable
expectations under the Contract. This is a breach of the
Defendant's duty to engage in fair dealing and to act in good
faith.
TONAWANDA VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION offers financial services
such as savings, loans, debit cards, credit cards & online banking
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (21) 558-5500
Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 4204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
TREGO/DUGAN AVIATION: Martinez Sues Over Illegal Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARDO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TREGO/DUGAN AVIATION OF GRAND ISLAND, INC.,
Case No. 7:22-cv-03383 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2022) is a class action
on behalf of all of Trego/Dugan Aviation's employees in the State
of New York that engage in manual work in the course of their
employment.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been paid every other
week, rather than weekly, during the entirety of his employment
with Defendant. Thus, for half of each biweekly pay period, the
Plaintiff has been injured in that he has been temporarily deprived
of money owed to him, and he could not invest, earn interest on, or
otherwise use these monies that were rightfully his. Accordingly,
every day that said money was not paid to him in a timely fashion,
he has lost the time value of that money.
New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner.
The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner. The New York Court Of
Appeals has explained that this law is "intended for the protection
of those who are dependent upon their wages for sustenance," says
the suit.
The Defendant has allegedly violated this law by paying its manual
workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis.
The Plaintiff demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees on behalf of herself and a putative class comprised of all
manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over the
last six years.
Trego Aviation was founded by Gary M. Trego in 1970 as a family
owned and managed FBO, flight school, charter operation and
aircraft maintenance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
TRI-COUNTY EQUIPMENT: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BAILEY,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
TRI-COUNTY EQUIPMENT RENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.,
TRI-COUNTY CO. INC., and JEFFREY SILVERS, Case No.
1:21-cv-00312-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order conditionally certifying case as a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.
Tri-County Equipment is an agricultural equipment dealership chain
with locations in Enterprise, Baker City and La Grande, Oregon.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lr8RX8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
- and -
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: (336) 333-9899
Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
TWO JINN: Medina Civil Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SARA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TWO JINN, INC. d/b/a ALADDIN BAIL
BONDS, Case No. 22CV000316, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Napa to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on April 26, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02540 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to provide a
notice required by California Civil Code to the Plaintiff and Class
members before asking them to co-sign a bail bond credit agreement
in connection with bail bond transactions.
Two Jinn, Inc., doing business as Aladdin Bail Bonds, is a chain of
bail bond agents based in Carlsbad, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
K.C. Jaski, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: mejiab@cooley.com
kjaski@cooley.com
- and –
Katelyn L. Kang, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001-2157
Telephone: (212) 479-6000
Facsimile: (212) 479-6275
E-mail: kkang@cooley.com
- and –
Robby L.R. Saldana, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20004-2400
Telephone: (202) 842-7800
Facsimile: (202) 842-7899
E-mail: rsaldana@cooley.com
UMG RECORDINGS: Harris, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Waite, et al v. UMG
RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as
Universal, Case No. 1:19-cv-01091-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
Susan Straw Harris, Leonard Graves Phillips, Stan Sobol, Steve
Wynn, Dennis Mehaffey, and Joel David Pellish, ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. granting their motion for class certification;
2. certifying the following proposed "Class A" and "Class B"
classes of recording artists (and their statutory heirs
and personal representatives);
3. appointing the named Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives; and
4. appointing the law firms of Blank Rome LLP and Cohen Music
Law as Class Counsel for the proposed Classes:
-- Class A
"All recording artists (and statutory heirs and personal
representatives of those recording artists, if
applicable) who have served Defendants with Notices of
Termination pursuant to the United States Copyright Act,
17 U.S.C. section 203, describing an effective date of
termination for a particular sound recording (i)
occurring on or after January 1, 2013, and (ii)
occurring no later than the date the Court grants
certification of Class A.
-- Class B
"All recording artists (and statutory heirs and personal
representatives of those recording artists, if
applicable) who have served Defendants with Notices of
Termination pursuant to the United States Copyright Act,
17 U.S.C. section 203, describing an effective date of
termination for a particular sound recording (i)
occurring on or after the date the Court grants
certification of Class A, and (ii) occurring no later
than December 31, 2031."
Excluded from the proposed Classes are: (i) Defendants,
and their parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates,
directors, and employees; (ii) any recording artist who,
according to the Court's prior rulings, granted rights
to the Defendants (or their predecessor companies) with
respect to the sound recording via a "loan-out company"
or whose sound recordings were provided to the
Defendants (or their predecessor companies) via a
"furnishing company"; (iii) any recording artist who
executed a written agreement with Defendants pursuant to
17 U.S.C. section 203(b)(4) whereby a Defendant has been
granted a "further grant" of the relevant copyright, or
the recording artist has otherwise affirmatively revoked
or withdrawn his or her Notice of Termination (e.g.,
pursuant to an individual settlement agreement, a
revocation or withdrawal of termination notice, or
further grant of rights); and (iv) any judicial officer
presiding over this action and the members of his/her
immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror
assigned to this action.
The Plaintiffs include Kasim Sulton, Susan Straw Harris p/k/a Syd
Straw, Leonard Graves Phillips, Stan Sobol p/k/a Stan Lee, Steve
Wynn, Dennis Mehaffey p/k/a Dennis Duck, and Joel David Pellish
p/k/a Dave Provost, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated.
UMG Recordings provides musical services. The Company offers
records, tapes, and other musical services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KtuNQb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roy W. Arnold, Esq.
Ryan E. Cronin, Esq.
Gregory M. Bordo, Esq.
David M. Perry, Esq.
Heidi G. Crikelair, Esq.
Jillian Taylor, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone (212) 885-5000
- and -
Evan S. Cohen, Esq.
Maryann R. Marzano, Esq.
COHEN MUSIC LAW
104 West Anapamu Street, Suite K
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3126
Telephone: (805) 837-0100
UNITED SERVICES: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALLOREY TOMCZAK, LUIS
RIVERA-SOLIS, KALITHA HEAD, JOSEPHINE WALKER, AND LESLIE WYATT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01564-MGL (D.S.C.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification
deadlines as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their Oct. 7, 2022
motion for class certification
no later than:
-- The Defendants shall file their Jan. 18, 2023
brief in opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification
no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their March 17, 2023
reply brief in support of their
Motion for Class Certification
no later than:
USAA 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' motion dated April 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ONAawU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Defendants are:
C. Bradley Hutto, Esq.
WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS
Post Office Box 1084
Orangeburg, SC 29116
Telephone: (803) 534-5218
Facsimile: (803) 928-5190
E-mail: cbhutto@williamsattys.com
- and -
Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
Brian Hanlin, Esq.
Alexander F. Beale, Esq.
Margeaux R. Azar, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, Co 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
murphym@fdazar.com
hanlinb@fdazar.com
bealea@fdazar.com
azarm@fdazar.com
- and -
Robert H. Brunson, Esq.
Robert W. Whelan, Esq.
Olesya V. Bracey, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
151 Meeting Street / Sixth Floor
Post Office Box 1806 (29402-1806)
Charleston, SC 29401-2239
Telephone: (843) 853-5200
E-Mail: robert.brunson@nelsonmullins.com
robert.whelan@nelsonmullins.com
olesya.bracey@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Jay Williams, Esq.
David C. Scottv, Esq.
James D. Cromley, Esq.
ARENT FOX SCHIFF LLP
233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 7100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 258-5500
E-Mail: jay.williams@afslaw.com
david.scott@afslaw.com
james.cromley@afslaw.com
UNITED SERVICES: Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid Extended
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EILEEN-GAYLE COLEMAN et
al., v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-00217-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivingo entered an order granting joint motion to extend time
for defendants to oppose motion for class certification.
1. The deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is extended to May 27,
2022; and
2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to reply to Defendants'
opposition is extended to June 17, 2022.
USAA is a San Antonio-based Fortune 500 diversified financial
services group of companies including a Texas Department of
Insurance-regulated reciprocal inter-insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y0oO2y at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Faces Dunn Suit Over Student Loan Discharges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SARA DUNN; CHERIE HART; and BRITTANY WILLIAMS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIGUEL
CARDONA, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of Education; and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10615 (D. Mass., April 25,
2022) alleges unreasonable delay in resolving application seeking
federal student loan discharges.
According to the complaint, the Office of the Massachusetts
Attorney General ("AGO") filed an application with the U.S.
Department of Education ("Department") seeking federal student loan
discharges on behalf of students formerly enrolled in the Medical
Assistant and Medical Billing and Coding programs at for-profit
Kaplan Career Institute in Boston, Massachusetts ("Kaplan").
Inexplicably, the Department has ignored this application.
The application ("Kaplan Group Application") was submitted as a
"borrower defense to repayment," pursuant to provisions in the
federal Higher Education Act ("HEA") and the Department's
implementing regulations, as well as terms in federal student loan
Master Promissory Notes, that provide for federal student loan
discharges based on institutional misconduct.
The alleged misconduct described in the Kaplan Group Application
was uncovered in the AGO's extensive investigation into Kaplan's
recruitment and educational practices. As of today, nearly six
years after the AGO's submission, the Department has not issued a
decision on the Kaplan Group Application. This six-year failure is
unconscionable, given the detailed evidence of misconduct that the
AGO provided to the Department. This six-year failure is also
illegal given the holdings of numerous cases within this District
requiring the agency to adjudicate applications submitted by the
AGO on behalf of aggrieved borrowers.
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION is a Cabinet-level
department of the United States government. It is responsible for
the administration of the Department of Education. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Olivia D. Webster, Esq.
Daniel A. Zibel, Esq.
Alexander S. Elson, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
Email: libby@defendstudents.org
dan@defendstudents.org
alex@defendstudents.org
- and -
Rebecca C. Ellis, Esq.
Michael N. Turi, Esq.
LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
122 Boylston Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Telephone: (617) 390-3003
Email: rellis@law.harvard.edu
mturi@law.harvard.edu
- and -
Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
Kyra A. Taylor, Esq.
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
7 Winthrop Square
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 542-8010
Email: sgrossman@nclc.org
ktaylor@nclc.org
UNITED STATES: Northern District of Ohio Dismisses Morrison Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, dismissed the case, WILLIAM T.
MORRISON, JR., Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant,
Case No. 4:21CV2111 (N.D. Ohio).
I. Background
Pro Se Plaintiff William T. Morrison, Jr., a federal prisoner
currently incarcerated in FCI Oakdale I in Louisiana, has filed a
Complaint against the United States of America under the Federal
Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). He was previously incarcerated at FCI
Elkton. The Complaint alleges claims for "negligent acts and/or
omissions" relating to the conditions of confinement to which the
Plaintiff alleges he was subjected when he was an inmate at Elkton.
He alleges that he was subjected to overcrowded and other unsafe
conditions during his detention at Elkton, including being denied
adequate protection from the COVID-19 virus. He seeks monetary
damages for injuries he contends he sustained. The Plaintiff
asserts his action is "potentially a class action." The Plaintiff
has filed Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and "Requesting the
Effectuation of Service."
II. Discussion
A.
The Plaintiff has already filed a lawsuit against federal
defendants challenging the conditions to which he contends he was
subjected during his detention at Elkton, including COVID-19 and
overcrowding. These are the same conditions that he alleges in the
Complaint (ECF No. 1) in the case at bar. In September 2021, the
district court entered a final judgment dismissing the prior case.
The Plaintiff appealed the dismissal, and the appeal remains
pending in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Judge Pearson holds that the Complaint in the present case is
barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which prohibits a party
from re-litigating claims and issues already decided in a prior
case. The doctrine of res judicata encompasses both claim and issue
preclusion. "Under claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits
bars any and all claims by the parties or their privies based on
the same cause of action, as to every matter actually litigated as
well as every theory of recovery that could have been presented."
Claim preclusion applies when there is: (1) "a final judgment on
the merits" in a prior action; (2) "a subsequent suit between the
same parties or their privies"; (3) an issue in the second lawsuit
that should have been raised in the first; and, (4) the claims in
both lawsuits arise from the same series of transaction.
Although the Plaintiff challenges the conditions of his confinement
at Elkton under a different legal theory, i.e., under the FTCA,
than he asserted in his prior lawsuit, res judicata bars his
action. Judge Pearson explains that the negligence claims the
Plaintiff asserts stemming from the conditions of his confinement
at Elkton pertain to the same series of transactions and
occurrences as were implicated in his prior federal lawsuit and as
to which there has been a final judgment on the merits; there is
privity between Defendant United States of America and the
Defendants sued in the prior action (i.e., the Warden at Elkton and
the Federal Bureau of Prisons); and the Plaintiff could have raised
negligence claims relating to the conditions he challenges in his
prior case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is precluded from bringing
this second action challenging the conditions to which he contends
he was subjected at Elkton.
B.
Furthermore, Judge Pearson opines that the Complaint fails to state
a claim to the extent the Plaintiff purports to represent other
inmates or bring his complaint as a class action. Pro se litigants,
such as the unrepresented Plaintiff in the case at bar, can
"present only their own claims, not the claims of other prisoners
who would make up the class."
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pearson dismissed the case at bar
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. In light of this
dismissal, she denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motions to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis and "Requesting the Effectuation of Service." Judge
Pearson certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that an
appeal from her decision could not be taken in good faith.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Memorandum of
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6td9dm from
Leagle.com.
VIRGINIA: District Court Refuses to Certify Class in Lumumba Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASKARI DANSA LUMUMBA, et al., Plaintiffs v. HAROLD
CLARKE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00080 (W.D.
Va.), Judge Michael F. Urbanski of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, denied Plaintiff
Lumumba's motion for class certification.
Mr. Lumumba, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed the civil
action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of himself and four
other inmates at River North Correctional Center, including Thomas
Rose. The case is presently before the Court on Lumumba's motion
for class certification, and Rose's motion to be removed from the
case.
As an initial matter, Judge Urbanski finds that the complaint is
only signed by Lumumba. There is no indication that any of the
other named plaintiffs authorized Lumumba to include them in the
case. To the contrary, Rose's motion indicates that he "was not
made aware that he was a party." Consequently, Judge Urbanski will
grant Rose's motion to be removed from the case and directs the
Clerk to update the docket to reflect that Lumumba is the only
Plaintiff.
With respect to the motion for class certification, a pro se
plaintiff may not represent other plaintiffs, and pro se class
actions are not permissible. Thus, the motion for class
certification must be denied.
For these reasons, Judge Urbanski denied Lumumba's motion for class
certification and granted Rose's motion to be removed from the
case. The Clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that
Lumumba is the only Plaintiff in the case. The Clerk will send a
copy of the Order to Lumumba and the other four inmates.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ym4ae827 from Leagle.com.
VIVID SEATS: Dennard Sues Over Deceptive Scheme in Selling Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENT DENNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIVID SEATS LLC; and DOES I through 20,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 30-2022-01256312-CU-FR-CX (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., April 25, 2022) alleges Defendant's misleading
ticket prices and bait and switch scheme constitutes false and
misleading advertising in violation of California Unfair
Competition Law and California False Advertising Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant lures consumers into
purchasing tickets for sporting events, concerts, and live shows
from its website and mobile application by advertising artificially
low ticket prices while hiding the amount of fees it charges for
each sale. The Defendant advertises misleading ticket price that do
not include added fees. Only at checkout does the Defendant for the
first time list a total amount that includes hidden service and
delivery fees, after consumes have already selected seats at a
lower advertised price, created or entered login credentials,
entered credit card information, and made the decision to buy.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged false advertising, the
Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages. They purchased
tickets they would not otherwise have bought, and paid fees they
would not otherwise have paid, had they not been drawn in by the
Defendant's deceptively low ticket price.
VIVID SEATS LLC operates an independent secondary ticket
marketplace. The Company sells tickets for live sports, concerts,
and theater events. Vivid Seats conducts business in the United
States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
AEGIS LAW, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite l00
Irvine, CA92618
Telephone:(949) 379-6250
Facsimile:(949) 379-6251
Email: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com
WALMART INC: Powell, et al., Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEARL POWELL, CHRISTINA
GAST, and ELIJHA GONZALEZ, as individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation;
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART STORES,
INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 3:20-cv-02412-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the First
Cause of Action contained in the Class Action Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on the
grounds that (1) the Class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of
law and fact common to the Class, (3) the class
representatives' claims are typical of the claims of the
Class, and (4) the class representatives will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Class;
2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
3. Certifying the following Class:
a. All non-exempt California employees whose employment
ended, either voluntarily or involuntarily, at any time
during the period of time from April 6, 2017, through
the present, and who during their employment with
Walmart, were paid sick pay during the same time period
in which he/she earned MyShare Incentive wages (the
"Class").
4. Finding Plaintiffs Dearl Powell, Christina Gast, and
Elijha Gonzalez to be adequate representatives and
certifying them as the class representatives; and
5. Finding Plaintiffs' counsel and their respective firms,
namely Larry W. Lee and Mai Tulyathan of Diversity Law
Group, P.C., Dennis S. Hyun of Hyun Legal, APC, and B.
James Fitzpatrick and Laura Franklin of Fitzpatrick &
Swanston, as adequate class counsel and certifying them as
class counsel.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F0hlSL
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com
- and -
B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Laura Franklin, Esq.
FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON
555 S. Main Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Telephone: (831) 755-1311
Facsimile: (831) 755-1319
E-mail: bjfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com
lfranklin@fandslegal.com
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
HYUN LEGAL, APC
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com
WALTER BERRY: Court Tosses Smith Bid to Show Cause & TRO
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRANCE SMITH v. Warden
WALTER BERRY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00014-TES-CHW (M.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Tilman E. Self, III entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion to show cause & temporary restraining order.
On March 8, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his
Recommendation to deny Plaintiff Terrance Smith's Motion to Show
Cause & Temporary Restraining Order without prejudice to his right
to refile at a later time. THe Plaintiff never filed an objection 1
to the Recommendation, and the time period prescribed by 28 U.S.C.
section 636 to file an objection has expired.
The Plaintiff filed a motion to amend to add defendants and request
class certification, but this motion does not constitute an
objection.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kkJXfK at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLSPAN HEALTH: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KELLER, and KEVIN
SCHAEFFER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, v. WELLSPAN HEALTH, Case No. 1:21-cv-02025-CCC (M.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), certifying this action as a collective action and to permit
Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice to the potential members of the
collective.
WellSpan Health is a large integrated health care system located in
South-Central Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vR0n54 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter C. Wood, Jr., Esq.
Matthew Mobilio, Esq.
MOBILIO WOOD
900 Rutter Ave., Box 24
Forty Fort, PA 18704
Telephone: (570) 234-0442
Facsimile: (570) 266-5402
E-mail: peter@mobiliowood.com
matt@mobiliowood.com
- and -
Kevin Schaeffer, Esq.
Alex Pisarevsky, Esq.
Erika R. Piccirillo, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West-Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
E-mail: ep@njlawfirm.com
ap@njlawfirm.com
WHITE HOUSE: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, King Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NINA KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHITE HOUSE BLACK MARKET, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03385
(S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2022) is a class action on behalf of all of
White House's employees in the State of New York that engage in
manual work in the course of their employment.
From September 2012 to August 2016, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant at a Chico's store located at 136 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York. The Plaintiff's job responsibilities at Chico’s
included manual labor, including tasks such as lifting and
unloading product shipments, stocking inventory, assembling floor
sets, tending the cash register, mopping, sweeping and dusting
floors, and cleaning bathrooms.
The Plaintiff was paid every other week, rather than weekly, during
the entirety of her employment with Defendant. Thus, for half of
each biweekly pay period, Plaintiff was injured in that she was
temporarily deprived of money owed to her, and she could not
invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were
rightfully hers. Accordingly, every day that said money was not
paid to her in a timely fashion, she lost the time value of that
money, the suit says.
New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner.
The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner. The New York Court Of
Appeals has explained that this law is "intended for the protection
of those who are dependent upon their wages for sustenance."
The Defendant has allegedly violated this law by paying its manual
workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis.
The Plaintiff demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees on behalf of herself and a putative class comprised of all
manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over the
last six years.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as:
"all persons who worked as manual workers in their employment
for Defendant in the State of New York from six years preceding
this Complaint to the date of class notice in this action."
The Defendant owns and operates a chain of boutique retail clothing
stores and employs hundreds of manual workers in the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***