/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220510.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 10, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 87
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Broadley Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: Ashford Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Covington Consumer Suit Removed to M.D. Louisiana
3M COMPANY: Davenport Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Sandifer Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Faces Carley Suit Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Garcia Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Holbrook Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Sheridan Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
A&J DISTRIBUTING: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Mailhiot Sues Over Contaminated Formula Milk
ADOMANI INC: Court OK's Settlement in Mollik Suit
ADP & ASSOCIATES: Kelly Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in H&T Suit
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Simmons Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ARTURO'S PIZZA: Martinez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL: Ituah Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
AUTEL US: Peng Wu Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
BETENY TECHNOLOGY: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG APPLE: Ischenko Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA & NYLL
BLUE CROSS: Faces M.C.W. Suit Over Denial of Medical Coverage
BUNNY DELI: Guerra Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
BZX DAO: Sarcuni Sues Over Hacked and Stolen Funds
CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Cir.
COLOR FACTORY: Seeks unpaid Regular & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
COMMUNITY MENTAL: Expedited Discovery Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
CRIME PREVENTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Settlement in Dixon Gets Final Nod
DRIVEN BRANDS: Niemesz Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Employees Under FLSA
ELITE GUNITE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobedo Suit Alleges
EMERGE INC: Must Reply to Schauer Class Cert Bid by May 5
FCA US: Must File Response to Class Certification Bid by June 5
FEDEX GROUND: Hall Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
FRONTIER UTILITIES: Class Certification OK'd in Perrong Suit
GEMILANG SOLUTIONS: Gutierrez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Houtchens Suit Over Defective Fitbit Smartwatch
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Nasseri Appeals Securities Suit Deal Approval
HARVEST HOSPITALITIES: Case Management Order Entered in Duke
HEALTHCARE FINANCE: Amaral FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HEALTHWAREHOUSE.COM INC: Belle Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Fails to Secure Consumers Info, Hill Alleges
IOVATE HEALTH: Protein Powders Contain Unlawful Slack-Fill Amount
JOHNNIE'S CAR: Garcia Seeks OT Pay for Employees Under FLSA, NYLL
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Rochester School Claims
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Wilbur School Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Bennington Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces Onion Creek Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Goodrich Area Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Hulbert Alleges
JUUL LABS: Talihina Public Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Crisis in Wash., Chimacum Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Vicksburg Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Mich.
KANSAS: Court Tosses Kanatzar's Bid for Class Certification
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Rubio Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
LANCESOFT INC: Perofeta Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
LASHAY'S CONSTRUCTION: Winfrey Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
LHCSA HOME: Vasquetelles Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LONDON BOY: Rivera Seeks Mnimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
LOS ANGELES, CA: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 2
MEDSCAN LABORATORY: Seward Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
MERCEDES-BENZ US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Click Suit Alleges
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Sklair Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir.
MRS BPO: Faces Linkenberg FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Letters
MYLES GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carter Suit Claims
NATERA INC: Faces Schneider Securities Suit Over Common Stock Drop
NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL: Masking Mandate Case Dismissal Appealed
NUSTRIPS INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NUTRALUXE GLOBAL: Ortega Seeks OT Pay for Employees Under FLSA
NYC HARLEM: Court Junks Bid to Initially Approve Settlement Deal
OFFICESCAPES LLC: Meyer Seeks Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Employees
OHIO PIZZA: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Proper Wages, Suit Says
OMG MIAMI SWIMWEAR: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OS RESTAURANT: Case Management Order Entered in Brusalis Suit
PAPARAZZI LLC: Fashion Accessories Contain Lead & Nickel, Suit Says
PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Whittaker Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PEET'S COFFEE: Loses Bid to Junk Whitaker Class Suit
PIE CHATACH: Tecun-Batzibal Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PINGORA ASSET: Faces Johnson Suit Over Cyberattack, Data Breach
POLARIS IND: Faces Debiasio Suit Over Defective Off-Road Vehicles
RANCHO SANTA FE: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Livingstone Says
RECKITT BENCKISER: Frank Appeals Ruling in Williams Suit
RED ROBIN: Miller Labor Suit Seeks OT Pay for Secondary Managers
RISKIFIED LTD: Thomas Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements
ROGAN SHOES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAF-GARD SAFETY: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Haythe Sues Over Deceptive TV's Refresh Rate
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Felder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Court Sets Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Severa Class Suit
SONY INTERACTIVE: Court Junks Majo Complaint with Leave to Amend
SPECTRUM HOME: Fails to Pay OT Wages for HHAs Under FLSA, OPPA
SPERL INC: Neubauer Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Employees Under FLSA
STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Burchett Sues Over Unpaid OT for Recruiters
STATE FARM: Faces Stelly Class Suit Over Roofing Repair Costs
SUN WEST MORTGAGE: Rolle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SYSCO JACKSONVILLE: A1A Burrito Appeals Mislabeling Case Dismissal
TARGET CORPORATION: Lidocaine Patches' Label "Deceptive," Ary Says
TD BANK: Berry FDUTPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
TENANTSAFE INC: Ruderman Suit Alleges Violations of FCRA
TOLUCA LAKE: Rivadeneyra Sues Over Retaliation, Discrimination
TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP: Smit Files RICO Suit in D. New Jersey
TOTAL RENAL CARE: Walters Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Junk Goble Suit
UMPQUA BANK: Court Enters Class Cert Scheduling Order in Camenisch
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ct. Extends Class Cert Deadlines in LD Suit
UNITED OF OMAHA: Scheduling Order on Class Cert Bids Entered
UNITED PARCEL: Court Stays Proceedings in Rizvanovic Suit
USAA GENERAL: Court Extends Case Schedule Deadlines in Drozdz Suit
VANGUARD CHESTER: Violates Fiduciary Duties for Retirement Plans
WALMART INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Thomas Suit
WIPRO LLC: Ahrendt Sues Over Call Center Agents' Unpaid Wages
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Broadley Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BROADLEY, 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-01394-RMG
(D.S.C., April 29, 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 and
leukemia, the suit alleges.
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: Ashford Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGIL ASHFORD, 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-01377-RMG
(D.S.C., April 28, 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: Covington Consumer Suit Removed to M.D. Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEON COVINGTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CLEMCO INDUSTRIES CORP. F/K/A CLEMCO
SERVICES CORP.; DEPENDABLE ABRASIVES, INC.; DRAVO BASIC MATERIALS
CO., INC.; E.D. BULLARD CO.; EMPIRE ABRASIVE EQUIPMENT CO., L.P.;
INGERSOLL-RAND CORP.; LONE STAR INDUSTRIES, INC.; 3M COMPANY;
RUEMELIN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SANSTORM, INC.; BOB SCHMIDT,
INC.; SOUTHERN SILICA OF LOUISIANA, INC.; SULLAIR COMPRESSOR CORP.;
and SPECIALTY SAND CO., Case No. C-712043, was removed from the
19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge,
State of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana on April 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00274-JWD-RLB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged fraudulent
representation that 3M's 8710, 8511 N95, and 8210 N95 respirators
complied with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) directives.
Clemco Industries Corp., formerly known as Clemco Services Corp.,
is a manufacturer of air-powered blast equipment based in
Missouri.
Dependable Abrasives, Inc. is a family-owned abrasive company
located in Mississippi.
Dravo Basic Materials Co., Inc. is a construction equipment company
based in Pennsylvania.
E.D. Bullard Co. is a manufacturer of personal protective equipment
and systems based in Kentucky.
Empire Abrasive Equipment Co., L.P. is an industrial equipment
supplier in Pennsylvania
Ingersoll-Rand Corp. is a manufacturer of flow control equipment
based in North Carolina.
Lone Star Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of construction
materials based in Indiana.
3M Company 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.
Ruemelin Manufacturing Co., Inc. is a manufacturer of abrasive
blast equipment based in Wisconsin.
Sanstorm, Inc. is a construction equipment in Texas.
Bob Schmidt, Inc. is a family-owned business in the U.S.
Southern Silica of Louisiana, Inc. is a construction materials
company based in Louisiana.
Sullair Compressor Corp. is a manufacturer of compressed air
solutions headquartered in Illinois.
Specialty Sand Co. is a sand supplier located in Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen G.A. Myers, Esq.
Jay M. Mattappally, Esq.
Gabriel J. Winsberg, Esq.
IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE LLC
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 310-2100
Facsimile: (504) 310-2101
E-mail: smyers@irwinllc.com
jmattappally@irwinllc.com
gwinsberg@irwinllc.com
3M COMPANY: Davenport Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY DAVENPORT, 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-01393-RMG
(D.S.C., April 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Sandifer Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY SANDIFER, individually and on behalf of the estate of ANTHONY
SANDIFER, deceased, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
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, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., a/k/a Chubb National Foam; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP;
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION, INC. (f/n/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01371-RMG (D.S.C., April 28, 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
Plaintiff Anthony Sandifer 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. Sandifer, 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 brain cancer,
the suit alleges.
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.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company headquartered in Florham
Park, New Jersey.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles R. Houssiere, III, Esq.
HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE, LLP
1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800
Houston, TX 77056-3812
Telephone: (713) 626-3700
Facsimile: (713) 626-3709
E-mail: choussiere@hdhtex.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Carley Suit Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD CARLEY, 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-01395-RMG
(D.S.C., April 29, 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, alleges 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: Garcia Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01361-RMG (D.S.C., April 28, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
right nephrectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Holbrook Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DARRELL HOLBROOK AND TAMMY HOLBROOK, HIS WIFE;
EDDIE BENTLEY AND PATRICIA BENTLEY, HIS WIFE; TROY ELKINS AND LISA
ELKINS, HIS WIFE; LEO SCOTT AND DEBRA SCOTT, HIS WIFE; BILL CHANEY
AND SANDRA CHANEY, HIS WIFE; ELMER BROWN; SANDRA WILSON,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TERRY WILSON; ROGER YEARY AND ANITA
YEARY, HIS WIFE; JEFF PILKENTON AND AMY PILKENTON, HIS WIFE; DANNY
FIELDS AND BARBARA ANN FIELDS, HIS WIFE; ARLIN JUSTICE AND
CHRISTINA JUSTICE, HIS WIFE; JAMES BRANHAM AND AMY BRANHAM, HIS
WIFE; MEFFERD HOLBROOK AND JACKIE HOLBROOK, HIS WIFE; TRAVIS
FIELDS; CHARLIE R ADAMS AND NANCY ADAMS, HIS WIFE; JOHNNY WHITAKER
AND TAMMY WHITAKER, HIS WIFE; WILLIAM MULLINS JR.; CAS HALL; ROGER
SEXTON AND DONNA SEXTON, HIS WIFE; ARNOLD LOWE JR. AND DELLA LOWE,
HIS WIFE; GLENDA TOLLIVER; RONNIE BIGGERSTAFF AND SHELIA
BIGGERSTAFF, HIS WIFE; DALLAS PARKS; STEVE SMALLWOOD; PASCHEL
SEXTON AND VICKIE SEXTON; HIS WIFE; JOHN W. CAUDILL AND SHIRLEY
CAUDILL, HIS WIFE; LINDA BEGLEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
THERMON BEGLEY; JOHN M. STEWART AND RUTHIE STEWART, HIS WIFE; JOHN
W. STEWART; RANDALL ELDRIGE AND ANDREA ELDRIGE, HIS WIFE;
CHRISTOPHER DOLLARHIDE AND REBECCA DOLLARHIDE, HIS WIFE; EDDIE HALL
AND TRENA HALL, HIS WIFE; ROGER SALYERS AND PAULA SALYERS, HIS
WIFE; EDWARD HIGGINS SR. AND MARY ELI HIGGINS, HIS WIFE; ADEAN
ADAMS AND NORMA JEAN ADAMS, HIS WIFE; ROGER BANKS AND IRENE BANKS,
HIS WIFE; ELMER LLOYD AND LAVONDIA LLOYD, HIS WIFE; DIRK LUCAS AND
KAREN LUCAS, HIS WIFE; BOBBY MORRIS AND VERDA MORRIS, HIS WIFE;
PETE BENTLEY; DAVID JOHNSON JR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES
COMPANY, LLC; AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION; CABOT CSC LLC; AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; MINE SERVICE COMPANY, INC.; KENTUCKY MINE SUPPLY
COMPANY, Case No. 22-CI-71, was removed from the Circuit Court of
the Letcher County, Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky on April 29, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky assigned
Case No. 7:22-cv-00038-REW-EBA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged fraudulent
representation that 3M's respirators complied with the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) directives.
3M Company 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.
Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC is a manufacturer of safety
equipment, headquartered in Pennsylvania.
American Optical Corporation is a manufacturer of optical products
based in Toronto, Ontario.
Cabot CSC LLC is a specialty chemicals and performance materials
company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.
Aearo Technologies, LLC is a manufacturer of end-to-end noise,
vibration, and thermal system solutions, headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Mine Service Company, Inc. is a provider of mining equipment,
headquartered in Hazard, Kentucky.
Kentucky Mine Supply Company is a company that supplies mine
equipment based in Harlan, Kentucky. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Byron N. Miller, Esq.
Michael J. Bender, Esq.
THOMPSON MILLER & SIMPSON PLC
734 West Main Street, Suite 400
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 585-9900
Facsimile: (502) 585-9993
E-mail: bmiller@tmslawplc.com
mbender@tmslawplc.com
mhess@tmslawplc.com
mhendricks@tmslawplc.com
- and –
Bryant J. Spann, Esq.
Robert H. Akers, Esq.
THOMAS COMBS & SPANN
300 Summers Street, Suite 1380
Charlestown, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 414-1800
Facsimile: (304) 414-1801
E-mail: BSpann@tcspllc.com
RAkers@tcspllc.com
JBrowne@tcspllc.com
LGibson@tcspllc.com
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH JOHNSON, 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-01376-RMG
(D.S.C., April 28, 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: Sheridan Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PHIL SHERIDAN, 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-01396-RMG
(D.S.C., April 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
A&J DISTRIBUTING: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A&J Distributing LLC.
The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. A&J Distributing LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03538 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A&J Distributing -- http://ajdistributing.net/-- is a distribution
service in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Mailhiot Sues Over Contaminated Formula Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Mailhiot, individual, on behalf of herself, her minor child, P.
M. and all others similarly v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a
Abbott Nutrition, Case No. 5:22-cv-00091-gwc (D. Vt., April 28,
2022) is an individual and class action lawsuit by the Plaintiffs,
and others similarly situated, who purchased Similac, Alimentum,
and Elecare Infant formula manufactured, sold and distributed by
Defendant.
The Defendant distributes, markets and sells several infant
formulas under the brand names Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare.
Several of Defendant's Similac products have been shown to be
adulterated with Cronobacter sakazakii. The presence of Cronobacter
sakazakii in Defendant's Similac, Alimentum, and Elecare products
was not disclosed in the products' label, in violation of state and
federal law.
Plaintiff Amy Mailhiot and the putative classes suffered economic
damages due to Defendant's misconduct and they seek injunctive
relief and restitution for the full purchase price of the Similac
product(s) they purchased.
As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff's infant child, P.M.,
ingesting the contaminated formula, Plaintiff Amy Mailhiot and her
infant child, P.M., have suffered damages in the past and will
continue in the future.
The Defendant demonstrates an unwillingness or incapability to
learn from not only from the lessons of its own misconduct, but
also from the historical misconduct of others engaged in the
manufacture, processing, packing, and holding of infant formula
that resulted in widespread, serious and often fatal harm to the
same especially vulnerable population, such as the "swill milk"
scandal during the 1850s in New York City. Thousands of infants
were reported to have died from bacterial infection after ingesting
contaminated milk sold to their poor and middle class parents by
unscrupulous distillers who fed the grain distillation byproduct to
dairy cattle kept in fetid conditions, the lawsuit added.
Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices
and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois,
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas C. Bixby, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS C. BIXBY, LLC
152 Woodstock Ave, Ste. B
P.O. Box 6856
Rutland, VT 05701
Telephone: (802) 775-3229
E-mail: tcblawvt@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by
E. Samuel Geiser, Esq.
Caitlyn Prichard Miller, Esq.
A YLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOL TZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: cmiller@awkolaw.com
sgeisler@awkolaw.com
ADOMANI INC: Court OK's Settlement in Mollik Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in March 7, 2022, a
California court issued an order approving a settlement in the case
captioned "M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al.," Case No.
RIC 1817493, and the parties are in the process of effectuating its
terms.
On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
"M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al.," Case No. RIC 1817493,
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against its predecessor, ADOMANI, Inc., certain
of its executive officers, Edward R. Monfort, the former Chief
Technology Officer and a former director of ADOMANI, Inc., and the
two underwriters of its offering of common stock under Regulation A
in June 2017.
This complaint alleges that documents related to its offering of
common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially
false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the company and
the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities
Act. The plaintiff sought on behalf of himself and all class
members certification of a class under California substantive law
and procedure, compensatory damages and interest in an amount to be
proven at trial, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees, awarding of
rescission or rescissionary damages and equitable relief at the
discretion of the court.
Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended
complaint, a second amended complaint, a third amended complaint,
and a fourth amended complaint. Mollik was replaced by putative
class representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC.
Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class
representative. On October 27, 2020, the company answered the
fourth amended complaint, generally denying the allegations and
asserting affirmative defenses.
On November 5, 2019, the underwriters filed a cross-complaint
against the company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
underwriting agreement the company and the Underwriters entered for
its initial public offering.
On December 10, 2019, the company filed its answer to the
underwriters' cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses. Also on this date, the company
filed a cross-complaint against the underwriters seeking
indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement.
On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a
cross-complaint against the company seeking indemnification under
the terms of its Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.
On February 18, 2020, the company filed an answer to Mr. Monfort's
cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses. In March 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed
its motion for class certification. In March 17, 2021, the court
held a case management conference. At the case management
conference, the court set a tentative schedule for class discovery
and briefing on the motion for class certification.
On June 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains and ADOMANI filed a
stipulation extending the deadline for class certification
discovery proposing the following deadlines: close of class
discovery on September 28, 2021, defendants' opposition to the
motion for class certification due on October 28, 2021, plaintiff's
reply in support of its motion due on November 29, 2021, a case
management conference on December 13, 2021 to set a date for
hearing on the merits of the motion for class certification.
Electric Drivetrains settled its claims against Mr. Monfort. The
underwriters have reached settlements with Electric Drivetrains on
the primary claims in this matter. All defendants are maintaining
their cross claims against each other. In July 13, 2021, Electric
Drivetrans' counsel moved to be relieved as counsel and on August
23, 2021, the court granted this motion. Also on August 23, 2021,
the Clerk of Court issued an order to show cause why the complaint
should not be stricken and matter dismissed for failure to retain
new counsel to Electric Drivetrains. On October 28, 2021, Electric
Drivetrains filed a substitution of attorney, substituting J. Ryan
Gustafson of Good Gustafson Aumais LLP as its new counsel. On
December 10, 2021, the Court vacated the order to show cause. On
January 20, 2022, Mr. Monfort dismissed his cross-complaint for
indemnification against the company.
On March 28, 2022, Electric Drivetains forwarded its proposed Fifth
Amended Complaint, in which it drops certain class allegations,
adds certain state law claims (various violations of California
Corporations Code), aider and abettor liability, and negligent
misrepresentation, but leaves the remaining claims against
defendants intact. In January 20, 2022, Mr. Monfort dismissed his
cross-complaint for indemnification against the company in the
Mollik action. In April 8, 2022, the company and Boustead
Securities, LLC settled their respective cross-claims against each
other in both the Mollik action and Brooks action in exchange for
the company paying $50,000 in cash and $125,000 in stock and mutual
releases between parties. There are no longer any cross claims
pending in the Mollik action.
Envirotech Vehicles is a provider of purpose-built zero-emission
electric vehicles focused on reducing the total cost of vehicle
ownership and helping fleet operators unlock the benefits of green
technology, serving commercial and last-mile fleets, school
districts, public and private transportation service companies and
colleges and universities to meet the increasing demand for light
to heavy-duty electric vehicles.
ADP & ASSOCIATES: Kelly Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KELLY and MAE SAFEE, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ADP & ASSOCIATES OF BROOKSVILLE, INC. and
ANTHONY D. PEDONESI, Individually, Case No. 8:22-cv-00994 (M.D.
Fla., April 28, 2022) contends that Plaintiffs are entitled to be
paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked for
Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs overtime at a rate not
less than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for work performed in
excess of 40 hours in a work week, violates the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
sections 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C.
The Plaintiffs' primary duties involved foundation design and
inspections for new homes and foundation inspections for such
homes.
The Defendants provide FHA/VA/USDA and conventional modular and
manufactured home foundation inspections for pre-owned homes.
The FLSA requires each covered employer such as the Defendants to
compensate all non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiffs, at a rate
of not less than 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all work
performed in excess of 40 hours in a work week.[BN]
ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in H&T Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Pipeline L.P. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled H&T Fair Hills, Ltd., et al. v. Alliance
Pipeline L.P., Case No. 0:19-cv-01095-JNE, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.
Agricultural landowners brought this case against Alliance Pipeline
for its alleged failure to compensate them for crop losses caused
by a pipeline it built through their properties. Prior to
construction, Defendant agreed to compensate these farmers for
pipeline-related crop losses. The Defendant met this obligation by
creating a crop loss program that compensated landowners and
tenants for lower crop yields on the pipeline right of way. In
2015, Defendant ended this program and, in 2019, Plaintiffs sued.
On July 6, 2021, Alliance filed a motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss the claims of landowners who granted Alliance easements
that, according to Alliance, require that crop damage disputes be
resolved through arbitration.
The Defendant is now seeks a review of the order entered by Judge
Joan N. Ericksen on March 24, 2022, granting in part and denying in
part Alliance's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss arbitrable
claims.
The appellate case is captioned as H&T Fair Hills, Ltd., et al. v.
Alliance Pipeline L.P., Case No. 22-1817, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on April 21, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript is due on or before May 31, 2022;
-- Appendix is due on June 10, 2022;
-- BRIEF APPELLANT, Alliance Pipeline L.P. is due on June 10,
2022; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant Alliance Pipeline L.P., also known as Alliance
USA, is represented by:
Samuel Andre, Esq.
Aron J. Frakes, Esq.
Patrick D.J. Mahlberg, Esq.
Nicole M. Moen, Esq.
Haley Waller Pitts, Esq.
FREDRIKSON & BYRON
200 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
Telephone: (612) 492-7000
Plaintiffs-Appellees H&T Fair Hills, Ltd. Norman Zimmerman, Donna
Zimmerman, Steven Wherry, Valerie Wherry, Robert Ruebel, Mary
Ruebel, Larry Ruebel, Mark Hein, Debra Hein, and Nicholas Hein, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Drew R. Ball, Esq.
Steve McCann, Esq.
BALL & MCCANN
161 N. Clark Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (872) 205-6556
- and -
Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
Brian William Nelson, Esq.
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
8050 W. 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Simmons Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Simmons, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Allied Universal Security Services, LLC, and Jean Rene Germain,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03526 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022), is brought to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
violations of the New York State Labor Law and their supporting New
York State Department of Labor regulations, and the NYLL's Wage
Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours a week but never received an overtime premium of one and one
half times his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants
did not compensate the Plaintiff for one hour's pay at the basic
minimum hourly wage rate for each day his shift exceeded 10 hours.
No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other
means, was ever given to the Plaintiff regarding wages are required
under the FLSA or NYLL. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the
rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours
worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a manual worker and security guard
from January 2014.
The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a security service
company as "Allied Universal."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
ARTURO'S PIZZA: Martinez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN BERNOZA MARTINEZ and PEDRO RIVERA on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. ARTURO'S PIZZA, CORP. and ESAD "ARTURO"
VUSANJIN jointly and severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-03416 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 27, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages for Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants willfully and repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs at
the overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek as required by FLSA & NYLL.
The Plaintiffs are hourly employees, delivery persons and prep
cooks, who have worked at the Defendants' restaurant, the
corporately owned Arturo's Pizza Corp., with an establishment
located at 5189A Broadway, Bronx, New York.
The Defendants have allegedly violated notice-and-recordkeeping
requirements by failing to provide statements along with wages
listing the name of employee, name of employer, address and phone
number of employer, rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether
paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or
other, gross wages, deductions, allowances, if any, claimed as part
of the minimum wage, and net wages. Defendants have further
violated the requirement that they provide, upon employee request,
explanations of how wages were calculated in violation of NYLL
section 195(3).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ria Julien, Esq.
JULIEN & MIRER, PLLC
1 Whitehall St., 16th floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 231-2235
E-mail: rjulien@julienmirer.com
AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL: Ituah Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Anisha H. Ituah, et al. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled NISHA H. ITUAH by her
Guardian, Angela McKay, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL, ALAN R.
ISAACSON, CATHERINE NOTTEBART, and JOHN DOES No. 1-5, EMPLOYEES OF
AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00011-RP,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Austin.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief alleging
that ASH policies fail to properly investigate reports of assault,
fail to hold perpetrators of assault at ASH accountable, and
ultimately fail to protect current and future patients from being
assaulted. In a vicious cycle, ASH's failure to investigate sexual
assaults adequately prevents ASH from taking reasonable measures to
prevent sexual assaults, which in turn leads to more sexual
assaults that are not properly investigated, beginning the cycle
again. Class representative Anisha Ituah was one victim of this
cycle of sexual assault at ASH.
According to the complaint, on average once a week a patient at ASH
facility reports being sexually assaulted. The overwhelming
majority of ASH's investigations into these reports result in
inconclusive determinations such as "unconfirmed." ASH's corporate
representative testified that she was not aware of a single case in
which basic investigative steps had been taken to preserve evidence
essential to determining whether the alleged assault occurred.
The Plaintiff is a mentally disabled 32-year old woman with the
approximate mental capacity of a 12-year-old girl. On the night of
January 7, 2016, while she was involuntarily committed at ASH,
another patient came into her room and raped her, the suit says.
As with other victims of sexual assault at ASH, her assault was the
result of inadequate patient safety and sexual assault
investigation policies, practices, and customs that discriminate
against Ms. Ituah and other female victims of sexual assault at ASH
on the basis of disability and sex.
On March 21, 2022, the Court entered an Order, granting Defendant's
motions for summary judgment and dismissing the Plaintiff's claims
with prejudice.
The Plaintiff is seeking a review of this ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Ituah v. Austin State Hospital,
Case No. 22-50305, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on April 22, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Anisha H. Ituah, by her Guardian, Angela McKay,
on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, is represented
by:
Holt M. Lackey, Esq.
ELLWANGER LAW, L.L.L.P.
8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78731
Telephone: (737) 808-2260
Defendants-Appellees Austin State Hospital, Catherine Nottebart,
and Stacey Thompson, are represented by:
Benjamin Walton, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 12548 (MC-019)
Austin, TX 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 463-0447
AUTEL US: Peng Wu Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PENG WU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AUTEL US INC., HONGJING LI, CHLOE HUNG, and
DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 22-CIV-01236, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02602 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay earned
wages and failure to produce employment records upon request in
violation of California Labor Code, breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. accounting,
conversion, and violation of California's Business and Professions
Code.
Autel US Inc. is a manufacturer of automotive intelligent
diagnostics, detection and analysis systems and automotive
electronic components, headquartered in New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nicole A. Legrottaglie, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
900 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 361-0991
E-mail: nlegrottaglie@cdflaborlaw.com
- and –
Arthur J. Robb, Esq.
Patrick D. Soundy, Esq.
CLIFTON BUDD & DEMARIA, LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, 61st Floor
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 687-7410
E-mail: ajrobb@cbdm.com
pdsoundy@cbdm.com
BETENY TECHNOLOGY: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beteny Technology
Ltd. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Beteny Technology Ltd., Case No.
1:22-cv-03533 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bethany Technologies -- https://bethanytechnologies.com/ -- is a
specialty electrical contractor providing low voltage electrical
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BIG APPLE: Ischenko Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA & NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
DMYTRO ISCHENKO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BIG APPLE INSTITUTE, INC. a/k/a BIG APPLE ACADEMY,
BECEC, INC. d/b/a BAMBI DAY CARE CENTER, DOLPHIN SPORTS SCHOOL INC.
d/b/a DOLPHIN SWIMMING SCHOOL, VLAD GORNY, YEVGENY ROYZENGURT and
BRONISLAV LEYDIKER, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-02435
(E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime premium pay pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums,
and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statements.
The Plaintiff is a former employee who worked at the Defendants'
enterprise under the title of "Security Guard". The Defendants'
enterprise includes a network of various schools (including a
private Elementary, Junior High School and High School), day care
centers, summer camps and swimming schools all located in Brooklyn,
New York. For his work, and despite the fact that he typically
worked in excess of 40 hours each week, the Plaintiff was paid a
flat weekly salary that did not vary with the number of hours that
he worked and which at all times fell below the minimum wage.
The Defendants' payment schemes resulted in systemic underpayment
of wages to Plaintiff and Defendants' other employees (both hourly
and salaried) in violation of federal and state wage laws, the
lawsuit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus A. Nussbaum, Esq.
Ilya Fishkin, Esq.
169 Commack Road, Ste. H371
Commack, NY 11725
Telephone: (201) 956-7071
Facsimile: (347) 572-0439
E-mail: marcus.nussbaum@gmail.com
BLUE CROSS: Faces M.C.W. Suit Over Denial of Medical Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
M.C.W. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Inc., a division of
Health Care Service Corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00362 (E.D. Tex.
April 29, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated challenging Defendant Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Texas's denial of coverage for services rendered to
plaintiff's son, A.W., at a licensed residential treatment center.
Blue Cross's alleged denial, based on a claim of lack of medical
necessity, is faulty for two distinct reasons. First, it relies on
medical necessity criteria for residential behavioral health
treatment unmentioned in Blue Cross's certificate of coverage that
are inconsistent with the terms of the Plan. Second, Blue Cross's
criteria for residential behavioral health treatment is more
restrictive than and out of parity with Blue Cross's medical
necessity standards for services rendered at skilled nursing
facilities, which violates the federal Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act, the suit says.
Blue Cross's use of behavioral health guidelines that are
undisclosed to plan participants and more restrictive than the plan
allows, and its violation of the Parity Act, breach its fiduciary
obligations to its insureds. Each violation results in improperly
denied benefits. And because (1) Blue Cross's certificate of
coverage is a boilerplate document identical in all material
respects among all Blue Cross subscribers and (2) Blue Cross's
coverage practices for residential behavioral health treatment are
out of parity for all subscribers, it has improperly denied mental
health benefits to other subscribers, warranting class action
treatment, the suit added.
With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the benefits
improperly denied individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, plus interest and attorneys' fees.
Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, a division of Health
Care Service Corporation, is part of a family of companies
operating Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Illinois, Montana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The Texas entity's headquarters is at
1001 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas, in Collin County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meagan Martin Powers, Esq.
MARTIN POWERS & COUNSEL, PLLC
600 E. John Carpenter Fwy., Suite 234
Irving, TX 75062
Telephone: (214) 612-6471
Facsimile: (214)247-1155
E-mail: meagan@martinpowers.com
- and -
Jordan Lewis, Esq.
JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
4473 N.E. 11 th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
Telephone: (954) 616-8995
Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com
- and -
David W. Asp, Esq.
Jennifer L. M. Jacobs, Esq.
Derek C. Waller, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: dwasp@locklaw.com
jlmjacobs@locklaw.com
dcwaller@locklaw.com
BUNNY DELI: Guerra Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN GUERRA and FLA VIO GUERRA, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. BUNNY DELI INC. and RASALINO
VICTORIO-MENDOSA, Case No. 1:22-cv-03498 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day their
work shift exceeded 10 hours, liquidated and statutory damages
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff, to work as a non-exempt
kitchen helper/food preparer, porter, and food delivery worker for
Defendants' Restaurant from in or about January 2021 through on or
about February 15, 2022.
The Defendant owns and operates a delicatessen and restaurant,
doing business as Bunny Deli, located at 1522 St. Nicholas A venue,
New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
BZX DAO: Sarcuni Sues Over Hacked and Stolen Funds
--------------------------------------------------
Christian Sarcuni, Pedro Cunha, Alexander Lloyd, Skliar Viktor,
Marc Simon, Pilici Rustam, Daniel Lu, Clement Ometek, Edison Ho,
Kiro Aleksandrov, Jonas Wernecke, Paolo Leite, Miras Issakhov, And
Daniele Penna, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
v. bZx DAO, KYLE KISTNER, TOM BEAN, HASHED INTERNATIONAL LLC, AGE
CRYPTO LLC, OOKI DAO, LEVERAGEBOX LLC, and bZeroX LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00618-LAB-DEB (S.D. Cal., May 2, 2022), is brought against
the Defednants as a result of the lacked reasonable safeguards
which resulted the Plaintiffs' funds being hacked and stolen.
The Plaintiffs in this case deposited cryptocurrency with a
protocol called bZx whose creators told users that they need not
"ever worry about getting hacked or anyone stealing their funds."
Despite this promise of security, the bZx protocol in fact lacked
reasonable safeguards and was hacked and the Plaintiffs' funds
stolen. Worse, the hack and subsequent theft were not the result of
some complex scheme or unknown vulnerability in the code, but
rather due to bZx's simple negligence: by bZx's own account, one of
the bZx developers fell for a so-called email "phishing" scam that
permitted access to key passphrases that then permitted the hackers
to drain the Plaintiffs' accounts because the protocol had not yet
implemented security measures that its operators knew were
reasonably necessary to protect the protocol. The end result was a
total theft of about $55 million in US Dollar equivalents:
approximately $1.6 million in total from these fourteen named the
Plaintiffs, and a substantial portion of the remainder from a
proposed class of similarly situated users.
The Defendants are jointly responsible for making good to the
Plaintiffs. Indeed, the protocol itself apparently acknowledges its
responsibility for the loss, though instead of making good, it has
put in place a woefully inadequate "compensation plan" where
Plaintiffs could receive IOUs with no real hope of repayment. Since
the protocol has failed to pay back what was taken as a result of
the protocol's negligence, all of these the Defendants are jointly
and severally responsible for making good to the Plaintiffs. That
is because the bZx protocol purports to be a so called DAO, or
de-centralized autonomous organization, that lacks any legal
formalities or recognition, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are bZx users.
The Defendant bZx DAO is a purported Decentralized Autonomous
Organization that is a general partnership.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented:
Jason Harrow, Esq.
Charles Gerstein, Esq.
GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
3243B S. La Cienega Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90016
Phone: (323) 744-5293
Email: jason@gerstein-harrow.com
CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff LYDIA BULTEMEYER filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled LYDIA BULTEMEYER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. CENTURYLINK, INC.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL, in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona.
CenturyLink allegedly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
by obtaining Ms. Bultemeyer's -- and all other class members' --
credit report in a specific, systematic manner and without a
permissible purpose.
The questions presented are: (a) Did the District Court manifestly
err by finding Ms. Bultemeyer atypical and inadequate because she
could not argue against the applicability of arbitration clauses in
online service agreements that CenturyLink failed to show applied
to any class member, and which on their face did not apply to the
single FCRA claim here?; and (b) Where the court is required to
conduct a rigorous analysis of the applicability of the Rule 23
factors at class certification, what evidentiary standard must a
defendant meet to demonstrate the applicability of an online
arbitration agreement to the claims of absent class members?
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 7, 2022, the
Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order (1) certifying this
action as a class action; (2) appointing her as class
representative; and (3) appointing her counsel as class co-counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23).
The Plaintiff also moved the Court to certify a class of
individuals against Defendant for violations of the FCRA, defined
as follows:
"Every individual in the United States about whom CenturyLink
obtained a consumer credit report prior to such individual
submitting an order for CenturyLink's services, using the
personal information entered into CenturyLink's ecommerce
website, from November 14, 2012 through the present."
On April 7, 2022, Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order denying
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class without prejudice.
The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of the Court's denial of
class certification.
The appellate case is captioned as LYDIA BULTEMEYER, on behalf of
herself And all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner v.
CENTURYLINK INC., Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 22-80035, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
April 21, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner LYDIA BULTEMEYER, on behalf of herself And all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
11445 E Via Linda, Ste 2 #492
Scottsdale, AZ 85259
Telephone: (602) 388-8898
- and -
Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 501-6550
COLOR FACTORY: Seeks unpaid Regular & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINA FUENTES, CAROLINA HENAO, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. COLOR FACTORY, INC., GREAT PAINTING CORP., BL
EXCLUSIVE PAINTING SERVICES CORP, CARLOS C. SAMPAIO, ALEJANDRA VEGA
MAYA, and JHOAN BASTARDO LINARES, individually, Case No.
1:22-cv-21347 (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2022) seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
While employed by Defendants, the Plaintiff worked more than 40
hours every week, but they were not paid for all their regular and
overtime hours worked. The Plaintiffs had a regular and mandatory
schedule, and they worked six days per week, a minimum of 51 hours
weekly, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs were hired as painters, and their main duty was
caulking before painting. While employed by the Defendants, the
Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week, but they were not
paid for all their regular and overtime hours worked.
Color Factory collaborates with artists, art institutions,
nonprofits, and brand partners to tell compelling stories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
COMMUNITY MENTAL: Expedited Discovery Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB O'MARA v. COMMUNITY
MENTAL HEALTH OF WASHTENAW COUNTY, et al., the Hon. Judge Curtis
Ivy, Jr. entered an order denying without prejudice Community
Mental Health of Washtenaw County's motion for expedited
discovery.
The Court said, "The parties to this action may object to and seek
review of this Order, but are required to file any objections
within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as
error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not
made. Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order
to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection.
When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge's ruling on a
non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect
unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district
judge. The district judge may sustain an objection only if the
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."
The Plaintiff sued the Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services, Director Elizabeth Hertel, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and
Community Mental Health of Washtenaw County (WCCMH). WCCMH moved
for expedited discovery. State Defendants and Plaintiff responded,
and WCCMH replied. State Defendants take no position on WCCMH's
motion or requested relief.
The Plaintiff opposes WCCMH's motion for expedited discovery. The
Plaintiff's request for sanctions included in their response was
stricken from the record as improper under Rule 5(f) of the Eastern
District of Michigan's Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures.
The undersigned held a motion hearing on April 12, 2022.
Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for WCCMH provided oral arguments.
Counsel for State Defendants appeared and took no position on the
pending motion or Plaintiff's response. WCCMH's
motion was taken under advisement.
The Plaintiff, an adult with developmental disabilities, filed this
civil rights case against Defendants through his co-guardians. The
Plaintiff claims he was entitled to receive in-home Community
Living Support (CLS), including medically necessary supervision as
determined by WCCMH.
Ther Plaintiff alleges he was denied CLS without procedural due
process, and in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS)
administers the Medicaid program in Michigan.
MDHHS contracts with regional pre-paid inpatient health plans
(“PIHPs”) who then sub-contract with community
mental health programs like WCCMH.49).
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w7OMyq at no extra charge.[CC]
CRIME PREVENTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL CRUZ; and RAUL VINO, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRIME PREVENTION OF FLORIDA, LLC;
and ANGEL GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. Case No. 1:22-cv-21333-XXX
(S.D. Fla., April 28, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as security guard.
CRIME PREVENTION OF FLORIDA, LLC. is a security agency which offers
private security services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Santiago J. Padilla, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SANTIAGO J. PADILLA, P.A.
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 824-2400
Facsimile: (305) 468-6321
Email: sjp@padillalawoffice.com
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Settlement in Dixon Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIMITRI DIXON, et al., v.
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD WESTERN, INC., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-05813-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the parties' class action settlement.
In addition, the court grants in part and denies in part
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs; specifically, the
Court awards the following: $1,470,000 in attorneys' fees; $60,000
in litigation costs; $20,000 in settlement administration costs;
and $5,000 as an incentive award for each class representative.
In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for
Class Action Settlements, "within 21 days after the distribution of
the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees," Class Counsel
shall file "a Post-Distribution Accounting" that provides the
following, to the extent applicable:
The total settlement fund, the total number of class members, the
total number of class members to whom notice was sent and not
returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of claim forms
submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the number and
percentage of objections, the average and median recovery per
claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to class members,
the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of payment to class
members, the number and value of checks not cashed, the amounts
distributed to each cy pres recipient, the administrative costs,
the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms of
percentage of the settlement fund, and the multiplier, if any.
Class Counsel shall "summarize this information in an easy-to-read
chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases," and
"post the Post-Distribution Accounting, including the easy-to-read
chart, on the settlement website."
In this wage and hour lawsuit, theg Plaintiffs allege that Cushman
& Wakefield Western, Inc. unlawfully denied appraiser and senior
appraiser employees guaranteed wage and overtime compensation due
to their misclassification as exempt employees under California
wage and hour laws, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The
parties in Dixon have reached a global settlement which resolves
three cases that are being combined into one amended complaint in
the instant case for settlement purposes.
On preliminary approval, the Court granted conditional
certification for Plaintiff Dixon to represent a Rule 23 class of
the following:
"All persons employed in California by CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD
WESTERN, INC., and CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD, INC., as an
Appraiser (including Junior Appraisers and Senior Appraisers)
assigned to at least one Cushman & Wakefield office between
August 14, 2014 through May 31, 2021 (California Class Action
Members).
The settlement called for a common fund of up to $4,900,000. Based
on the claims filed, the actual common fund amount is
$3,876,130.59. Of this amount, $2,110,797.25 will go to individual
settlement awards (the Net Settlement Fund).
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MQt1Ku at no extra charge.[CC]
DRIVEN BRANDS: Niemesz Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Employees Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC NIEMESZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DRIVEN BRANDS SHARED SERVICES LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00504-PP (E.D. Wis., April 27, 2022) is a collective and
class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws, for
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.
The Defendant is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is
mechanic and auto parts company. The Defendant operated (and
continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived
and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work
performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for
each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for daily rest breaks that lasted less than 20
consecutive minutes in duration, in violation of the FLSA and
WWPCL, and/or for meal periods during which they were not
completely relieved of duty or free from work for at least 30
consecutive minutes, in violation of the WWPCL, which resulted in
overtime violations of the FLSA, says the suit.
The Defendant's alleged failure to compensate its hourly paid,
non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek,
including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was
intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the
FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL.
The Plaintiff also brings a claim and cause of action against
Defendant in his individual capacity for purposes of obtaining
relief under the WWPCL for unpaid minimum, overtime, and
agreed-upon (regular) wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other
relief the Court may deem appropriate, for failing to compensate
Plaintiff for hours worked and work performed on behalf of the
Defendant, with Defendant's knowledge, for Defendant's benefit,
and/or at Defendant's direction during the workweeks that comprised
the time period of March 27, 2022 to April 16, 2022, in violation
of the WWPCL.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the
position of Lube Technician at Defendant's "Take 5" location in
Baraboo, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ELITE GUNITE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobedo Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ESCOBEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE GUNITE, LLC.; and CAREL J. BAKKES,
Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01004 (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Escobedo was employed by the Defendants as construction
worker.
ELITE GUNITE, LLC is a gunite contractor in the central Florida and
greater Tampa Bay area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EMERGE INC: Must Reply to Schauer Class Cert Bid by May 5
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schauer et al v. Emerge,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00731-CCB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Catherine
C. Blake entered an order regarding the plaintiff's pending motion
for class certification:
-- The defendant's response is due: May 5, 2022
-- The plaintiffs' reply is due: May 19, 2022
Emerge provides a comprehensive approach to supporting people with
disabilities living and working in the community.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LKMjR3 at no extra charge.[CC]
FCA US: Must File Response to Class Certification Bid by June 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON NUWER, AMARILLIS
GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60432-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting
unopposed motion to extend briefing schedule.
-- FCA US LLC shall file its Response June 5, 2022
in Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
for Class Certification on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their June 26, 2022
Reply in Support of their motion
for Class Certification on or
before:
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OVHiY7 at no extra charge.[CC]
FEDEX GROUND: Hall Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT B. HALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.; GHG
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV26934, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 28,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02852 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of
duties, unlawful deductions from wages, and unfair and unlawful
business practices.
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a company that provides
package delivery services, headquartered in Coraopolis,
Pennsylvania.
GHG Corporation is a software company in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brandy T. Cody, Esq.
Amberly A. Morgan, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858)597-9600
Facsimile: (858)597-9601
E-mail: bcody@fisherphillips.com
amorgan@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Shaun J. Voigt, Esq.
Danielle S. Krauthamer, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: svoigt@fisherphillips.com
dkrauthamer@fisherphillips.com
FRONTIER UTILITIES: Class Certification OK'd in Perrong Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PERRONG v. FRONTIER
UTILITIES NORTHEAST LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-05844-MSG (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order:
1. Appointment of the Settlement Administrator. KCC Class
Action Services, LLC is appointed as the Settlement
Administrator.
2. Provision of Class Notice. Defendant Frontier Utilities
Northeast LLC and the Settlement Administrator shall
notify Settlement Class Members of the settlement in the
manner specified under Section 4 of the Settlement
Agreement.
3. Claim for a Settlement Award. To be eligible to receive an
award, subject to the review process for Claims pursuant
to Section 5.3 of the Settlement Agreement.
4. Any Settlement Class Member who has not submitted a
timely written request for exclusion and who wishes to
object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
Settlement Agreement, the Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award,
or the Service Payments must deliver written objections to
the Settlement Administrator or the Court by postal mail
and postmarked no later than 90 calendar days after the
entry of this Order.
5. Class Definition. The class to be notified is defined as:
"All persons in the United States to whom Frontier or
anyone acting or purporting to act on Frontier's behalf
made or tried to make any of the following Calls between
May 31, 2013, and the date of this Order: (a) one or more
Calls made using an automatic telephone dialing system,
dialing platform, or other dialing equipment, to a number
assigned to any paging service, cellular telephone
service, specialized mobile radio service, radio common
carrier service, or service for which the called party is
charged for the Call; (b) one or more Calls initiated
using an artificial or prerecorded voice; and/or c) one or
more Calls to a telephone number while it was on the
national Do-Not-Call Registry or a state Do-Not-Call
Registry or was on or requested to be placed on Frontier's
internal do-not-call list."
Excluded from the class are: (1) the Judges and Magistrate
Judges presiding over the Action and members of their
immediate families; (2) the Defendants, their parent
companies, successors, predecessors, and any entities in
which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling
interest, and Defendants' current and former officers and
directors; (3) persons who properly execute and timely
file a request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the
legal representatives, successors, or assigns of any such
excluded person(s).
6. Provisional Class Representatives. Pending a decision on
class certification, Plaintiffs Andrew Perrong and Stewart
Abramson shall provisionally serve as the class
representatives to implement the Parties' settlement in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The law firms of
Paronich Law, P.C. and Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP
shall provisionally serve as class counsel. Plaintiffs and
Counsel must fairly and adequately protect Settlement
Class Members' interests.
7. Stay of Dates and Deadlines. All discovery and pretrial
proceedings and deadlines, in this case, are stayed until
further notice from the Court, except for such actions as
are necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement and
this Order.
8. Final Settlement Approval and Class Certification Hearing.
On November 10, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., this Court will hold a
Final Approval Hearing to determine whether the Settlement
Agreement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate and whether a class should be certified as
defined above.
The Plaintiffs Andrew Perrong and Stewart Abramson bring claims
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated.
The Plaintiffs allege Defendants Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC
and Next Generation Energy, Inc. made automated telemarketing calls
to Plaintiffs and others and that these calls violated the TCPA.
Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC operates electric utility
network.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LNAPwo at no extra charge.[CC]
GEMILANG SOLUTIONS: Gutierrez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
HUMBERTO GUTIERREZ, GLORIA E. DIAZ, and other similarly situated
individuals v. GEMILANG SOLUTIONS LLC, HAYDE RODRIGUEZ, and JUAN
RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 6:22-cv-00816-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla., April 29,
2022) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as part of their cleaning
crew. Mr. Gutierrez primarily worked washing dishes for the
Defendants. Ms. DIAZ primarily worked polishing items.
When Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants, Gutierrez spent between
50-70 hours per week working for Defendants and Diaz spent anywhere
between 50-60 hours per week working for the Defendants, says the
suit. The Defendants allegedly did not pay overtime to any of the
Plaintiffs when they worked more than 40 hours per week.
Gemilang is and was a cleaning company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Houtchens Suit Over Defective Fitbit Smartwatch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Houtchens and Samantha Ramirez, individually, and on behalf
of those similarly situated, v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-02638
(N.D. Cal., April 29, 2022) is a class action complaint against the
Defendant for the manufacture, distribution, marketing, and sale of
the Fitbit smartwatch, all of which suffer from an identical defect
in design.
Specifically, the Products are prone to burning users during use
and create the potential for a burn or fire hazard. Smartwatches
that pose such a hazard are unreasonably dangerous compared to the
utility of the Product. Moreover, such a defect can render the
Products unusable during periods of overheating. As such, this
defect rendered the Products unsuitable for its principal and
intended purpose, the lawsuit says.
Further, had Plaintiffs been aware of this serious defect, they
would not have purchased the Product, or would have paid
significantly less for it.
On March 2, 2022, Defendant in conjunction with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a voluntary
recall of approximately 1,700,000 units of Defendant's Fitbit Ionic
smartwatch due to the prevalent nature of the defect (the Ionic
Recall).
While one of the Products -- the Fitbit Ionic smartwatch -- was
recalled, the same defect exists throughout all of the Products. In
fact, the defect has been present in all of the Products for years.
The Defendant fails to acknowledge this, and instead places the
blame on one "bad apple" to avoid liability and diminished sales
for the "whole bunch."
Unfortunately, the defect permeated -- unknowingly to consumers --
throughout all of the Products which led (and currently leads) to
unneeded physical injury and economic harm.
The Products that Plaintiffs purchased began to malfunction shortly
after purchase because the Product would overheat during use which
caused burning of the wrist for Ms. Ramirez and the daughter of Ms.
Houtchens, the suit added.
The Plaintiffs suffered economic injury from the Products' defect
because they purchased an item that was worth less than what had
been represented to them.
From its California headquarters, the Defendant produces, markets
and distributes its Products in retail stores across the United
States including stores physically located in the State of
California and within this district. The engineering, marketing,
sales, and recall decisions described herein were made from its
offices located within the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663
E-mail: cta@ggallp.com
- and -
R. Allen Smith, Esq.
THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC
300 Concourse Blvd., Suite 104
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 952-1422
E-mail: asmith@smith-law.org
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste 102
Pittsburgh PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Nasseri Appeals Securities Suit Deal Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor ARASH NASSERI filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled THE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST.
LOUIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, JAMES H. ROBERTS, JIGISHA
DESAI, and LAUREL J. KRZEMINSKI, Case No. 3:19-cv-04744-WHA, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
On August 13, 2019, individual investor Douglass Greene filed this
putative securities class action against defendant Granite
Construction Incorporation and individual defendants James H.
Roberts, the CEO of Granite, and Jigisha Desia, the CFO of Granite,
alleging false and misleading statements in violation of federal
securities laws.
The Plaintiff alleges that Granite misrepresented and concealed
information regarding certain risks and additional costs related to
its joint venture construction projects. The Plaintiff further
alleges that Granite made positive statements about these projects.
However, in July 2019, Granite disclosed that its financial results
for the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 were negatively impacted
by non-cash charges related to four legacy, unconsolidated heavy
civil joint venture projects. The disclosure ultimately led the
stock price to fall $7.98 per share. The stock price then fell
$2.78 per share in August 2019 following a further announcement
that the four projects had experienced delays and increased costs.
The Police Retirement System of St. Louis was appointed as lead
plaintiff on November 26, 2019 pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.
On March 17, 2022, the Court entered an Order and Judgment granting
Lead Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement;
granting in part and denying in part Class counsel and intervenor
counsel's motions for attorney's fees and expenses; and denying
Intervenor counsel's motion to seal.
Arash Nasseri, as Intervenor, is now seeking a review of this
order.
The appellate case is captioned as POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST.
LOUIS, on behalf of itself and similarly situated plaintiffs,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARASH NASSERI, Intervenor-Appellant, v.
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; JAMES H. ROBERTS; JIGISHA DESAI; LAUREL
J. KRZEMINSKI, Defendants, Case No. 22-15577, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 20, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 27,
2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 19, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be filed by June 20, 2022;
-- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on July 28, 2022;
-- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on August 29, 2022; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief. Failure
of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result
in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
HARVEST HOSPITALITIES: Case Management Order Entered in Duke
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR DUKE v. HARVEST
HOSPITALITIES, INC., and SATTAR SHAIK, Case No. 2:20-cv-00865-CCW
(W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an case
management order as follows:
1. Deadlines for Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Final Certification:
-- Plaintiff's Motion and Opening May 30, 2022
Brief shall be filed by:
-- The Defendants' Opposition shall June 30, 2022
be filed by:
-- The Plaintiff's Reply Brief July 14, 2022
shall be filed by:
2. Deadlines for Daubert Motions and other Evidentiary
Motions Related to Class/Collective Certification:
-- Cross-motions and Opening Briefs June 14, 2022
shall be filed by:
-- Oppositions shall be filed by: July 14, 2022
-- Reply Briefs shall be filed by: July 28, 2022
3. Deadlines for Summary Judgment Motions:
-- Cross-motions and Opening Briefs shall be filed no
later than 21 days after the Court resolves Plaintiff's
motion for class/collective certification and the
Parties' cross-motions on evidentiary matters.
-- Oppositions shall be filed no later than 21 days after
the Opening Briefs are filed.
-- Reply Briefs shall be filed no later than seven days
after the Oppositions are filed.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39DLQ5f at no extra charge.[CC]
HEALTHCARE FINANCE: Amaral FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARCO AMARAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE FINANCE DIRECT, LLC, Case
No. CACE-22-004391, was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 29,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:22-cv-60836 to the proceeding.
According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly made or caused
to be made unlawful telephonic sales calls, specifically text
messages, without the prior express written consent of the
recipients thereof, in violation of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
Healthcare Finance Direct, LLC is a financial institution in
Bakersfield, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 374-0440
E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
yaniv@markmigdal.com
eservice@markmigdal.com
HEALTHWAREHOUSE.COM INC: Belle Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA BELLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHWAREHOUSE.COM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 8:22-cv-01007-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to promote its goods and services without prior express
written consent of the recipients. As a result of the Defendant's
misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated residents have
been harmed including violations of their statutory rights,
statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their
privacy.
Healthwarehouse.com, Inc. is a healthcare company headquartered in
Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Fails to Secure Consumers Info, Hill Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hill, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01676-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 28, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information including names, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, and health plan information (PII).
According to Defendant's website, the Defendant offers actuarial
services for multiemployer and Taft-Hartley. Defendant boasts that
it provides "superior actuarial and consulting services to
multiemployer benefit plans—first as the Wyatt Company, then as
Watson Wyatt, and now as Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC."
On November 12, 2021, Defendant received an email from a group
claiming to have stolen copies of personal data from its computer
servers. The Defendants immediately launched an investigation and
determined that two of Defendant's computer servers were accessed
without authorization for a limited period on November 10 and 11,
2021 (the "Data Breach").
The Defendant did not send notice of the data breach to Plaintiff
and some Class Members until April 13, 2022. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the
Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable
duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant
admits that the unencrypted PII impacted during the Data Breach
included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and health
plan information, says the suit.
The exposed PII of Plaintiff and Class Members can be sold on the
dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the
unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. The Plaintiff and Class
Members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is
heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers - the gold
standard for identity thieves. This PII was compromised due to
Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the
failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members.
As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class
Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they
were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The
risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit added.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
Defendant's conduct. These injuries include lost or diminished
value of PII and out-of-pocket expenses associated with the
prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud,
and/or unauthorized use of their PII, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant allegedly disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and
Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Rd.
Building 14, Ste. 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
IOVATE HEALTH: Protein Powders Contain Unlawful Slack-Fill Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTINO GREEN and JACOB POLONSKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A.
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-02610-KAW (N.D.
Cal., April 28, 2022) alleges that the Defendant sells several
varieties of protein powders and workout supplements containing an
unlawful amount of slack-fill.
According to the complaint, the container in Defendant's Nitro Tech
Whey Protein Product measures to a vertical height of 8.25 inches
and is filled to a vertical height of 4.25 inches. The Defendant
underfills this Product by nearly 50%.
The Defendant manufactures and sells an extremely popular line of
powder supplement products throughout the United States. To
increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition,
the Defendant deceptively sells its supplements in oversized
packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are
nearly half empty. Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to all
flavors, sizes, and varieties of Muscletech (TM) supplements sold
in opaque containers (the "Products"), says the suit.
The Defendant dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay
premium prices for empty space. In one version of the Product, the
opaque container measures to a vertical height of approximately 10
inches, while the product inside only measures to a vertical height
of approximately 6 inches. In Defendant's VaporX5 Pre-workout
Product, the container measures to a vertical height of 5.25 inches
and is filled to a vertical height of 2.5 inches. The Defendant
underfills this Product by over 52%.
The amount of product inside any product packaging is material to
any consumer seeking to purchase that product. The average consumer
spends only seconds deciding whether to make an in-store purchase;
this decision is heavily dependent on a product's packaging,
including the package dimensions. Research has demonstrated that
packages that seem larger are more likely to be purchased because
consumers expect package size to accurately represent the quantity
of the good being purchased.
Accordingly, the Defendant chose a certain size container for its
Products to convey to consumers that they are receiving a certain
and substantial amount of powder product commensurate with the size
of the container. Such representations constitute an express
warranty regarding the Products' content, the suit added.
The Defendant falsely represents the quantity of product in each of
the Products' opaque containers through its packaging. The size of
each container leads the reasonable consumer to believe he or she
is purchasing a container full of powder product when, in reality,
what he or she actually receives is significantly less than what is
represented by the size of the container.
The Class which Plaintiffs seek to represent comprises:
"All persons who purchased the Products in the United States
or,
alternatively, the State of California, for personal use and not
for resale during the time period of four years prior to the
filing of the complaint through the present."
Excluded from the Class are Defendant's officers, directors, and
employees, and any individual who received remuneration from
the Defendant in connection with that individual's use or
endorsement of the Products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
E-mail: zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
JOHNNIE'S CAR: Garcia Seeks OT Pay for Employees Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHAN S. UMANA GARCIA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JOHNNIE'S CAR WASH ON OAK INC. (DBA JOHNNIE'S
CAR WASH ON OAK) JOHNNIE "DOE," Case No. 9:22-cv-02403 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 27, 2022) seeks to recover overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions for Plaintiff and
similarly situated co-workers who have been employed by Defendants
to work in Johnnie’s Car Wash on Oak for some or all the time
period relevant to this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly work for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime
compensation for any of the hours that he worked.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was ostensibly
employed for cleaning cars in Johnnie's Car Wash on Oak located in
Copiague.
The Defendants operate a car wash company where the Plaintiff
worked.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Rochester School Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER 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-02594 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 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.
Rochester School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 10140 US-12 in Rochester, 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: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Wilbur School Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILBUR 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-02585 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 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.
Wilbur School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 202 Pope Street in Wilbur, 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 Bennington Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENNINGTON 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-02587-WHO (N.D. Cal., April 28, 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.
Bennington Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 729 North Perry Street in Bennington, Oklahoma.
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 Onion Creek Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ONION CREEK 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-02622 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 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.
Onion Creek School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 2006 Lotze Creek Road, Colville, 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: Goodrich Area Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
GOODRICH AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02591 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 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.
Goodrich Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 8029 South Gale Road in Goodrich, 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: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Hulbert Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
HULBERT 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-02593 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 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.
Hulbert Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 316 Rider Lane in Hulbert, Oklahoma.
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: Talihina Public Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
TALIHINA 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-02590-WHO (N.D. Cal., April 28, 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.
Talihina Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 600 1st in Talihina, Oklahoma.
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 in Wash., Chimacum Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHIMACUM 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-02584 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 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.
Chimacum School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 91 West Valley Road in Chimacum, 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: Vicksburg Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICKSBURG COMMUNITY 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-02588 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 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.
Vicksburg Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 301 South Kalamazoo Avenue in Vicksburg,
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
KANSAS: Court Tosses Kanatzar's Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALEB KANATZAR v. JEFF
ZMUDA, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-03036-SAC (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge
Sam A. Crow entered an order that:
(1) The Court will enter a separate e-service order directing
the Clerk of Court to serve Defendants.
(2) The Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) shall submit
the Martinez Report within 60 days following the
electronic filing of the Waiver of Service Executed.
(3) Officials responsible for the operation of HCF are
directed to undertake a review of the subject matter of
the Amended Complaint.
(4) The KDOC must seek leave of the Court if it wishes to file
certain exhibits or portions of the report under seal or
without service on Plaintiff.
(5) Authorization is granted to the officials of HCF (and the
El Dorado Correctional Facility where Plaintiff now
resides) to interview all witnesses having knowledge of
the facts, including Plaintiff.
(6) No motion addressed to the Amended Complaint shall be
filed until the Martinez Report required herein has been
prepared.
(7) Discovery by Plaintiff shall not commence until Plaintiff
has received and reviewed any Court-ordered answer or
response to the Amended Complaint.
(8) The Clerk of Court shall enter KDOC as an interested party
on the docket for the limited purpose of preparing the
Martinez Report ordered herein.
(9) The Plaintiff's request for class certification is denied.
(10) Jeff Zmuda is dismissed from this action.
The Kansas Department of Corrections is a cabinet-level agency of
Kansas that operates the state's correctional facilities, both
juvenile and adult.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sbZZgc at no extra charge.[CC]
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Rubio Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PEDRO RUBIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
CVRI2201604, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on April 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00603-MMA-JLB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, the California Unfair
Competition Law, and breach of contract following the unauthorized
access of the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers from its system.
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage loan servicer based in
Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com
LANCESOFT INC: Perofeta Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEMETRIUS PEROFETA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LANCESOFT, INC., CVS HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. CV-22-001330, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on April 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-at-00299 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal
breaks, unpaid wages, itemized wage statement violations, and
waiting time penalties.
LanceSoft, Inc. is an employment agency company based in Virginia.
CVS Health Solutions, LLC is a health solutions company
headquartered in Rhode Island. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
Thea S. Alli, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
thea.alli@morganlewis.com
LASHAY'S CONSTRUCTION: Winfrey Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derrell Winfrey, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Lashay's Construction & Development Co., Inc., and Andrew
Simmons, Case No. 1:22-cv-02506 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022), is brought
to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
violations of the New York State Labor Law and their supporting New
York State Department of Labor regulations.
On the weeks where the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours a
week, he was only paid his straight time rate of pay. The Plaintiff
regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours a week
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage
rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a manual worker, hoist operator and
elevator operator at the Defendants' construction company.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control Lashay's Construction
a/k/a Turner Construction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
LHCSA HOME: Vasquetelles Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Vasquetelles, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. LHCSA Home Health Holdings, LLC, LHCSA Management LLC,
and Honor Health Network, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03525 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 2, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and violations of the New York State Labor Law and
their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.
To accomplish their business goals, the Defendants employ an
illegal policy and practice commonly known as "time shaving".
Specifically, although Plaintiff was responsible for clocking
himself in, the Defendants would require the Plaintiff, and other
similarly situated employees, to clock-out at the end of their
workday at 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. every day. Although the Plaintiff
invariably worked past 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m., the Plaintiff was
not compensated for any work performed during this time. As a
result, the Defendants failed to pay their home health aides,
including the Plaintiff, legally required wages under the FLSA and
NYLL, including minimum wage and overtime, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a home health aide for the Defendants' home
health care service known as Hand-in-Hand Home Health Care.
The Defendants own, operate, and control a network of home health
care service providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
LONDON BOY: Rivera Seeks Mnimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------
GESELL HERNANDEZ RIVERA and SANTO RAFAEL HERNANDEZ VENTURA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LONDON
BOY SPORTSWEAR LTD (D/B/A LONDONBOY STATION), MICHAEL'S COLLECTIONS
CORP. (D/B/A MICHAEL FASHION), ALI KHALIL, and HASSAN KHALIL, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03510 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says.
The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled two clothing stores,
located at 2908 3rd Ave. Bronx, NY 10455, and operating under the
name "Londonboy Station" and at 2910 3rd Ave Bronx, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
LOS ANGELES, CA: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAMYA BREWSTER, ELIAS
ARIZMENDI and JULIAN VIGIL, individually and as class
representative, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No.
5:14-cv-02257-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
continuing hearing on class certification motion for OPG class and
on motion to decertify classes, from April 25, 2022 be to May 2,
2022.
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry. Near its iconic
Hollywood sign, studios such as Paramount Pictures, Universal and
Warner Brothers offer behind-the-scenes tours.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w7Oesm at no extra charge.[CC]
MEDSCAN LABORATORY: Seward Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Seward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MedScan Laboratory, Inc. d/b/a Adaptive Health
Integrations, Case No. 1:22-cv-00073-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., May 2, 2022),
is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected
health information ("PHI") that Defendant's patients entrusted to
it, including, without limitation, name, address, Social Security
number, and "other types of information" including PHI that was
maintained or collected by Adaptive (collectively, "personally
identifiable information" or "PII").
According to the Defendant's report to the Office of the Maine
Attorney General, the Defendant "recently" learned an unknown and
unauthorized party had access to its systems from October 17, 2021
(the "Data Breach"). According to the Defendant, the "unauthorized
access" may have impacted the unsecured PHI of at least 510,574
individuals collected, stored, and maintained by Defendant. On
April 13, 2022, nearly six months after the Data Breach began,
Defendant began notifying the Department of Health and Human
Services7 and various states Attorneys General of the Data Breach,
including but not limited to Maine, California, Montana, and Texas.
In letters dated April 5, 2022, the Defendant began notifying the
Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII and PHI, the Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals.
The exposed PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members can now be
sold on the dark web. The Plaintiff and Class Members face a
lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the
loss of Social Security numbers. This PII and PHI was compromised
due to the Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions
and the failure to protect the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class
Members.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As the
result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
actually or potentially compromised through disclosure to an
unknown and unauthorized third party. The Plaintiff and Class
Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their
information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to
injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Pennsylvania who
received a Data Breach Notification Letter from the Defendant.
MedScan Laboratory, Inc. doing business as Adaptive Health
Integrations provides various billing and software support services
to laboratories, healthcare companies and doctors' offices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 327-5355
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
John Yanchunis, Esq.
Patrick Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602
Phone: (813) 559-4908
Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
MERCEDES-BENZ US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Click Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CLICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00539-MHH (N.D., Ala., April 28, 2022) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay wages, including proper
overtime, for all hours worked in violation the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The action further seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed by the Defendant's other non-overtime-exempt workers,
who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but the
Defendant's decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers
bear the economic burden for the hack.
MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC. is the production location
for the GLE-, GLS- and the GLE Coupe Sport Utility Vehicles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victoria L. Dye, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN BIRMINGHAM, PLLC
2317 Third Avenue North, Suite 102
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (659) 204-6363
Fax: (659) 204-6388
Email: vdye@forthepeople.com
-and-
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd., Ste. 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Fax: (954) 327-3013
Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com
-and-
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Tel: (407) 420-1414
Fax: (407) 867-4791
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
-and-
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (713) 999-5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Sklair Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alexis Sklair, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ALEXIS SKLAIR, STERLING
RETTKE, NATHANIEL BROWN, BRIAN GILES, JOCELYN REYNOLDS, and CARYN
AUSTEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., and MICHAEL BLOOMBERG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-CV-2495-LTS-GWG, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
According to the complaint, Michael Bloomberg announced his
candidacy for President of the United States on Nov. 24, 2019.
Because his announcement came "just months" before votes would be
cast in the Democratic primary, the Campaign knew it would need to
incentivize applicants to join its efforts rather than pursue
employment with other political campaigns. Accordingly, Mr.
Bloomberg and members of the Campaign promised field staffers and
field staff applicants that "the nature of the staffers' work would
involve both primary and general election work, either working
directly for the Campaign or another entity established or funded
by Bloomberg, regardless of whether Bloomberg won the nomination."
The Defendants also promised the Campaign's field staffers that Mr.
Bloomberg and the Campaign "had committed the funds necessary to
keep field offices open through November 2020" and "employ the
staffers on the general election."
The Plaintiffs allege that that these promises were made by the
Campaign's hiring managers during recruitment efforts and
interviews, reiterated by Mr. Bloomberg and Campaign
representatives in public statements, and reinforced by Campaign
representatives to employees in the days following Mr. Bloomberg's
withdrawal from the Presidential race on March 4, 2020.
The Plaintiffs are former Campaign field organizers who accepted
employment with the Campaign in late 2019 and early 2020, foregoing
alternative employment and/or educational opportunities. At the
initiation of his or her employment, each Plaintiff entered into an
employment agreement with the Campaign that specified that each
staffer was an "at-will" employee and noted that the Campaign "may
terminate his or her employment at any time, with or without notice
and with or without cause, for any reason or for no reason." These
employment agreements also contained a no-oral modification clause
stating: "No statement varying any of the terms of this offer
letter will be enforceable unless set forth in a writing signed by
a duly authorized officer of the Organization." Mr. Bloomberg was
not individually a party to these employment agreements.
Plaintiffs Alexis Sklair, Sterling Rettke, Nathaniel Brown, Brian
Giles, Jocelyn Reynolds, and Caryn Austen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, brought this putative
class action on March 23, 2020 against Defendants Mike Bloomberg
2020, Inc. (the "Campaign") and Michael Bloomberg, asserting claims
for fraudulent inducement and promissory estoppel.
On August 3, 2020 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. They move in the alternative to strike the
class allegations with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(D).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 12, 2022, Judge
Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in full the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs are challenging the Court's case dismissal order.
The appellate case is captioned as Sklair v. Mike Bloomberg 2020,
Inc., Case No. 22-864, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on April 21, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Alexis Sklair, Sterling Rettke, Nathaniel
Brown, Brian Giles, Caryn Austen, and Jocelyn Reynolds, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Ilann Margalit Maazel, Esq.
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
600 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 763-5000
Defendants-Appellees Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. and Michael R.
Bloomberg are represented by:
Mark W. Batten, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1 International Place
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 526-9600
- and -
Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
Allison Lynn Martin, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 969-3410
MRS BPO: Faces Linkenberg FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Linkenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-03500-PMH
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022) is a class action on behalf of a class
of consumers under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act seeking
damages and declaratory relief.
Some time prior to August 6, 2021, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred
an obligation to non-party Citizens Bank-N.A. This alleged debt
was incurred as a financial obligation that was primarily for
personal, family or household purposes, specifically for personal
credit.
MRS collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to
have been incurred debt.
The Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter on or about August
6, 2021 regarding the alleged debt originally owed to Citizens. The
Defendant failed to provide a basis for Plaintiff to determine what
charges, if any, caused the increase from the charge-off amount to
the amount currently alleged as due. It is not possible for the
change-off balance and current balance to be different if no
amounts were added or subtracted in the interim. The letter does
not state that the balance may increase or is increasing. The
letter does not explain why the balance has increased, the lawsuit
added.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Rockland.
The Defendant MRS is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ, 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 x101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: YSaks@SteinSaksLegal.com
MYLES GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carter Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MYLES GROUP, INC.; and AARON
MYLES, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-01359 (S.D. Tex., April 28,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Carter was employed by the Defendants as driver.
Myles Group, LLC is a transportation, trucking, and railroad
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
NATERA INC: Faces Schneider Securities Suit Over Common Stock Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HARVEY SCHNEIDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly v. NATERA, INC., STEVE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL BROPHY, MATTHEW
RABINOWITZ, and RAMESH HARIHARAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00398 (W.D.
Tex., April 27, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Natera common stock between February 26, 2020, and April
19, 2022, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly assured
investors that Panorama was reliable, that Prospera was more
accurate than competing tests, and that Natera's growth was driven
by its superior technology and customer experience. However,
investors began to learn the truth on January 1, 2022, when The New
York Times published a detailed report calling into question the
accuracy of certain prenatal tests manufactured by Natera and other
diagnostic testing companies.
On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $5.35 per
share, or approximately 6% over two trading days, from a close of
$93.39 per share on December 31, 2021, to close at $88.04 per share
on January 4, 2022, says the suit.
Less than two weeks later, on January 14, 2022, the Campaign for
Accountability -- a nonprofit watchdog group -- filed a complaint
with the SEC requesting an investigation as to whether "Natera
repeatedly claimed -- in marketing materials and earnings calls –
that [its] tests are much more reliable than it appears they really
are."
On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $6.29 per
share, or more than 9%, from a close of $67.37 per share on January
14, 2022, to close at $61.08 per share on January 18, 2022.
Then, on March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") issued
an investigative report (the "Hindenburg Report") alleging, among
other things, that "Natera's revenue growth has been fueled by
deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at doctors, insurance
companies and expectant mothers."
On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as
$28.65 per share, or more than 52%, from a close of $54.75 per
share on March 8, 2022, to an intra-day low of $26.10 per share on
March 9, 2022.
On March 14, 2022, a jury found that Natera had intentionally and
willfully misled the public by utilizing false advertisements to
market Prospera in violation of the federal Lanham Act, the
Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Delaware common law.
Among other things, the jury found that Natera's marketing falsely
claimed that Prospera was more accurate than the competing kidney
transplant testing offered by CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx"). Ultimately,
the jury awarded CareDx $44.9 million in monetary damages.
On this news, Natera common stock fell as much as $8.81 per share,
or approximately 22.5%, from an intra-day high of $39.13 per share
on March 14, 2022, to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022.
On April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") issued a safety communication "to educate patients and
health care providers and to help reduce the inappropriate use of
[NIPTs]." The FDA cautioned that statements about NIPTs'
reliability and accuracy "may not be supported with sound
scientific evidence" and revealed the existence of "cases where a
screening test reported a genetic abnormality and a confirmatory
diagnostic test later found that the fetus was healthy."
On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as
$1.53 per share, or approximately 3.9%, from an intra-day high of
$39.63 per share on April 19, 2022, to close at $38.10 per share on
April 20, 2022.
This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that Panorama was not
reliable and resulted in high rates of false positives.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the significant decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered
significant damages.
The Plaintiff purchased Natera common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered damages as a
result of the alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
Natera offers genetic testing in the areas of women's health,
oncology, and organ health. Among other things, the Company
produces and markets a non-invasive prenatal test ("NIPT") called
"Panorama," and a screening test for kidney transplant failure
called "Prospera." Natera's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under
the ticker symbol "NTRA."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Underwood, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
8701 Bee Cave Road
Building 1, Suite 500
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
E-mail: junderwood@nixlaw.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Barbara A. Schwartz, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
bschwartz@ktmc.com
NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL: Masking Mandate Case Dismissal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs B. P., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled B.P., a minor, by and through their
parent, L.P., C.L., a minor, by and through their parent, K.L,
O.D., a minor by and through their parent, N.D., R.J., a minor, by
and through their parent, H.J., L.H., a minor by and through their
parent, S.H., O.P, a minor, by and through their parent, S.P.,
E.H., a minor, by and through their parent, M.H., L.S., a minor by
and through their parent, B.P., G.E., a minor, by and through their
parent, A.E., M.B., a minor, by and through their parent, R.B.,
G.A., a minor, by and through their parent, A.A., each a minor
resident of the North Allegheny School District attending a North
Allegheny School District or a parent of the same, Plaintiffs v.
NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Pennsylvania governmental
entity, ANDREW CHOMOS, MARCIE CROW, ELIZABETH BLACKBURN, RICHARD
MCCLURE, SCOTT E. RUSSELL, ALLYSON MINTON, KEVIN MAHLER, ELIZABETH
WERNER, and SHANNON YEAKEL, all individual elected officials sued
in their individual capacity and in their capacity as members of
the NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, a
Pennsylvania elected legislative body, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01112-MJH, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
The lawsuit is brought related to school masking in the North
Allegheny School District, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The
Plaintiffs, parents of minor children who attend schools in the
District, bring a three-count Complaint requesting injunctive
relief for violations of procedural and substantive due process and
violations of their First Amendment rights to free association.
The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
with their Complaint on August 22, 2021. Following Oral Argument,
the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order on narrow procedural due process grounds, ordering that the
August 18, 2021 Board action was stayed pending further Board
action on lifting the mask mandate at a subsequent Board Meeting
following public notice and comment period. On October 13, 2021,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining
Order. After briefing was completed, the Court granted Defendants'
Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated October
26, 2021, granting Defendants' MOTION to Dissolve Temporary
Restraining Order; Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 12,
2022, granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated March 24, 2022, granting MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and dismissing case.
The appellate case is captioned as B. P., et al. v. North Allegheny
School District, et al., Case No. 22-1707, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 20,
2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant B. P., a minor, by and through their parent,
L.P., is represented by:
Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
BEHREND LAW GROUP
428 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1700
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 391-4460
- and -
Alexander W. Saksen, Esq.
GOLDBERG KAMIN & GARVIN
437 Grant Street
1806 Frick Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-1119
Defendant-Appellee NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Pennsylvania
governmental entity, is represented by:
Steven P. Engel, Esq.
Christina L. Lane, Esq.
MAIELLO BRUNGO & MAIELLO
Southside Works
424 South 27th Street, Room 210
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Telephone: (412) 242-4400
NUSTRIPS INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NuStrips, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. NuStrips, Inc. doing business
as: NuStrips, Case No. 1:22-cv-02505-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y., May 2,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
NuStrips -- https://nustrips.com/ -- offers portable vitamin
strips.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
NUTRALUXE GLOBAL: Ortega Seeks OT Pay for Employees Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irma Y. Ortega and other similarly situated individuals v.
Nutraluxe Global LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00272 (M.D. Fla., April 27,
2022) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of Plaintiff
and all other current and former employees similarly situated to
Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more
weeks on or after April 2019, without being adequately
compensated.
Nutraluxe employed Ms. Ortega as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly
employee from March 2016 to April 12, 2022, or more than six years.
She had duties as a production and packing employee.
Nutraluxe is a manufacturer of cosmetics and skincare products.
The Defendant has facilities located at 12801 Commonwealth Dr.
Suites 1-10, Fort Myers, Florida, where Plaintiff worked.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
NYC HARLEM: Court Junks Bid to Initially Approve Settlement Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL MEDINA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NYC
HARLEM FOODS INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01321-VSB (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of their class action
settlement agreement.
Judge Broderick says that because he deny Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary settlement approval, he must also deny without
prejudice Plaintiff's request for conditional certification of the
proposed class, appointment of class counsel, and approval of the
proposed class notice.
If the parties intend to file a revised agreement and motion, the
motion should also address the legal standard for certification of
a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.
The parties may proceed by either:
1) Filing a revised settlement agreement within 21 days of
the date of this Order that cures the deficiencies in the
provisions as discussed above; or
2) Filing a joint letter within 21 days of the date of this
Order that indicates the parties' intention to abandon
settlement, at which point I will set a date for a
status conference.
The Plaintiff Medina brings this putative class action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York State Labor Law
(NYLL), the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), and the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, against the Defendants.
The Plaintiff is a New York resident and "manual worker" for
Defendants, which "jointly and operate fast food establishments
throughout New York State."
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FfhYrq at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiff, are:
James Bouklas, Esq.
Bouklas Gaylord LLP
Jericho, New York
The Counsel for Defendants, are:
Elizabeth Rolande Gorman, Esq.
John Joseph Byrnes, III, Esq.
MILBER, MAKRIS, PLOUSADIS & SEIDEN, LLP
Woodbury, NY
OFFICESCAPES LLC: Meyer Seeks Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL MEYER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. OFFICESCAPES LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00226-DRC (S.D. Ohio, April
27, 2022) challenges policies and practices of Defendant that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio overtime
compensation statute.
The Plaintiff contends that as non-exempt employees, he and the
FLSA Collective Members should have been paid overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. But, the
Defendant failed to pay the required overtime compensation to them,
he added.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio who was employed by the
Defendant as a production employee from October 2020 to April 8,
2022.
The Defendant is in the business of manufacturing artificial
flowers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St. N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
OHIO PIZZA: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Proper Wages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON MORROW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OHIO PIZZA 17, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02048-MHW-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, April 27, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys'
fee, as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing
to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Specifically, Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid
Delivery Driver from December of 2020 until March of 2021. The
Defendant also employed other hourly-paid Delivery Drivers within
the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit, says the
suit.
The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers less than
minimum per hour for all hours worked outside of the restaurant
making deliveries. In other words, the Defendant takes advantage of
the "tip credit" provision of the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 203(m) while Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers are out
making deliveries.
The Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers would "clock out" from
working inside the store and "clock in" as making deliveries when
leaving the restaurant to make deliveries, thereby changing their
hourly pay rate.
The Defendant owns and operates Jet's Pizza franchises in Ohio,
which is where the Plaintiff worked for them.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Short, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
OMG MIAMI SWIMWEAR: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omg Miami Swimwear
LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Omg Miami Swimwear LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03536 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Omg Miami Swimwear -- https://www.omgmiamiswimwear.com/ -- is the
world's top leading swimwear company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
OS RESTAURANT: Case Management Order Entered in Brusalis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander Brusalis, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. OS
Restaurant Services, LLC and Bloomin' Brands, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01980-SRB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan R. Bolton
entered a case management order:
-- Initial disclosures required by May 13, 2022
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a) shall be exchanged no
later than:
-- The deadline for completing December 16, 2022
pre-certification fact discovery,
including discovery by subpoena,
shall be completed by no later than:
-- All pre-certification November 1, 2022
interrogatories, requests for
production of documents, and
requests for admissions shall
be served by no later than:
-- The party with the burden of proof January 20, 2023
shall provide full and complete
expert disclosures related to class
certification, as required by Rule
26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, no later than:
-- Any motion for class certification May 5, 2023
or dispositive motions shall be filed
by no later than:
-- Any opposition to the motions June 2, 2023
identified in Paragraph 6(a) shall
be filed by no later than:
-- Any reply brief in support of the June 23, 2023
motions identified in Paragraph 6(a)
for class certification shall be
filed by no later than:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PaMHuD at no extra charge.[CC]
PAPARAZZI LLC: Fashion Accessories Contain Lead & Nickel, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Crystal Johnson, Nancy Kebort, Karen Langston, Pamela
Sheehan-Peterson, and Leslie Ann Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paparazzi, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-00170-M (E.D.N.C., April 29, 2022) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of persons who purchased
Paparazzi's necklaces, earrings, bracelets, and other accessories,
which Plaintiffs' testing has revealed contain lead and nickel, in
contradiction to Paparazzi's express claims that its Products were
lead and nickel free.
A central tenet of Paparazzi's marketing and sales strategy during
the relevant time period was to prominently promote its Products as
lead and nickel free.
In stark contrast to Paparazzi's pervasive marketing of its
Products as lead and nickel free, Plaintiffs' independent testing,
as well as test results obtained from other customers, has revealed
that Paparazzi's Products do in fact contain significant amounts
of lead and nickel.
Consumers lack the ability to ascertain the true contents of
Paparazzi's Products prior to purchase. Accordingly, reasonable
consumers must and do rely on Paparazzi to accurately and honestly
disclose the materials in its Products. This is especially true for
materials such as lead and nickel, the lawsuit says.
Paparazzi made its "lead and nickel free" claims a central part of
its marketing message to consumers in order to misleadingly create
the impression that its Products are safer and of a higher level of
quality than they are in reality, the lawsuit added.
Paparazzi is a multi-level direct selling company based in Utah
that specializes in fashion accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff are represented by:
Patrick Wallace, Esq.
MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
E-mail: pwallace@milberg.com
- and -
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
4801 Glenwood Avenue, Ste. 310
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com
PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Whittaker Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Moss Insurance
Agency LLC. The case is styled as Brenda Whittaker, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paul Moss
Insurance Agency LLC doing business as: Epiq Insurance Agency, an
Ohio limited liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-08077-SMB
(S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Paul Moss Insurance Agency LLC doing business as Epiq Insurance
Agency -- https://epiqagency.com/ -- offer consumers the ability to
get a fast, comprehensive Home Insurance Quote that can protect
their investment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
MAXWELL & MORGAN PC
Pierpont Commerce Center
4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104
Mesa, AZ 85206
Phone: (480) 833-1001
Fax: (480) 969-8267
Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz
PEET'S COFFEE: Loses Bid to Junk Whitaker Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN WHITAKER v. PEET'S
COFFEE, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-05163-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order denying the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and request for evidentiary hearing.
Per his Complaint, the Plaintiff is a quadriplegic who suffers from
a C-4 spinal cord injury and uses a wheelchair for mobility. The
Plaintiff alleges that, on two occasions in June 2021, he went to
Peet's Coffee located at 1140 Lincoln Avenue in San Jose,
California.
During the visits, Plaintiff allegedly encountered outdoor dining
surfaces that did not provide sufficient knee or toe clearance for
wheelchair users. The Plaintiff alleges that these barriers are
easily removed without much difficulty or expense, and that he will
return to Peet's Coffee once it is represented to him that its
facilities are accessible. He is currently deterred from returning
because of his knowledge of the existing barriers and his
uncertainty about the existence of other barriers on site.
Peet's Coffee is a San Francisco Bay Area-based specialty coffee
roaster and retailer owned by JAB Holding Company via JDE Peet's.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38PE2Ni at no extra charge.[CC]
PIE CHATACH: Tecun-Batzibal Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Anibal Tecun-Batzibal and Lucas Ba Tzibal-Mejia, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. PIE CHAT ACH 1776
LLC d/b/a PESCADA, ROVI COHEN, Y ANIV BENISTY, RAPHAEL TREITEL, and
DAN MIZRACHI, Case No. 1:22-cv-02492 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, to recover from the Defendants: unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day their
work shift exceeded 10 hours, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were
not paid proper overtime compensation. The Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiff with accurate and complete wage statement
setting forth, among other things, the Plaintiffs' hours worked,
hourly rate, etc. the Defendants knowingly and willfully operate
their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time
and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and
one-halt), in direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law
and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor
Regulations. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their
business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees a "spread of hours" premium for each
day that their work shift exceeded 10 hours, in direct violation of
the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department
of Labor Regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs work as non-exempt cooks at the Restaurant.
Pie Chatach 1776 LLC, owns and operates a gourmet kosher
restaurant, doing business as Pescada, located in Brooklyn, New
York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jcpclaw.com
PINGORA ASSET: Faces Johnson Suit Over Cyberattack, Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Johnson, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. Pingora Asset Management, LLC, and Pingora Loan
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01034-LTB (D. Colo., April 28,
2022) seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief
for a class of individuals who also received notices of the data
breach from Pingora.
This class action arises out of the recent cyberattack and data
breach ("Data Breach") that was perpetrated against Defendant
Pingora, a company that holds itself out as "a specialized asset
manager focused on investing in and servicing of new production
performing servicing right (MSR) portfolios."
According to its website, Pingora uses a third-party subservicer to
provide the loan servicing and explains that mortgage subservicers
perform the day-to-day servicing activities on loans, such as
collecting payments and administering escrow accounts. On its
computer network, Pingora holds and stores certain personally
identifiable information ("PII") of the Plaintiff and the putative
Class Members, who are individuals whose mortgage servicing rights
Pingora either "currently or previously owned."
Pingora emphasizes on its website that the "subservicers companies'
computer networks were not involved in this incident."
As a result of Pingora's alleged Data Breach, Plaintiff and
thousands of Class Members, suffered ascertainable losses in the
form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack.
In addition, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information -- which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised
and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach.
The private information compromised in the Data Breach included
names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers (the holy
grail for identity thieves), loan numbers, and for some, the
accessed files included information provided for a mortgage loan
application, loan modification, or other items related to mortgage
loan servicing. On notices to certain State Attorneys General,
Pingora states that the stolen data also includes driver's license
numbers, state identification cards, and financial and banking
information, says the suit.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was
exfiltrated by the cyber-criminals who perpetrated the attack and
remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's alleged failure
to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Class Members' Private Information.
Pingora Asset provides investment advisory services. The Company
offers investment management, financial planning, and mortgage
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rick D. Bailey, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICK D. BAILEY, ESQ.
1801 Broadway, Ste. 528
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (720) 676-6023
E-mail: rick@rickbaileylaw.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
POLARIS IND: Faces Debiasio Suit Over Defective Off-Road Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES DEBIASIO, a California resident v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 22STCV14289 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 28, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated seeking damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the fraudulent
actions of the Defendant with regard to its fraudulent business
practices, that caused Plaintiff and the other Class members
damages.
This action concerns recreational off-road vehicles ("ROVs")
manufactured by the Defendant, Polaris Industries, that all suffer
from a common design defect causing the vehicles' engine
compartments to reach temperatures in excess of what they are
designed to withstand (the "Thermal Degradation Defect"). The
Thermal Degradation Defect causes premature wear and damage to the
engine components in all of the Class Vehicles and puts the owners'
lives at risk.
The Class Vehicles are equipped with a high-powered "ProStar"
engine that is located directly behind the occupant compartment in
a tight space that restricts airflow and provides the surrounding
components with little clearance from the hot exhaust and the
complex series of insufficient heat shields.
The Thermal Degradation Defect is exacerbated by a design with
limited clearances between the exhaust system and plastic body
components, as well as critical hoses, wiring, and fuel and brake
lines, which are continually exposed to high temperatures.
24 The extremely high temperatures, combined with inadequate
cooling and heat shielding, result in the degradation and melting
of the surrounding components, including fuel system components,
leading to a reduced life cycle and compromised parts and
assemblies.
Polaris is an American manufacturer of motorcycles, snowmobiles,
all-terrain vehicles, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris
was founded in Roseau, Minnesota, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
David B. Fernandes, Jr., Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
Courtney L. Davenport
THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM LLC
18805 Porterfield Way
Germantown, MD 20874
Telephone: (703) 901-1660
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com
dfernandes@baronbudd.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
RANCHO SANTA FE: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Livingstone Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LIVINGSTONE on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. RANCHO SANTA FE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Case No.
3:22-cv-00602-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2022) seeks recover
unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon,
liquidated damages, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, and
other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District provides fire
prevention and suppression services for the Covenant of Rancho
Santa Fe and its adjacent communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Cunningham, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES J CUNNINGHAM
10405 San Diego Mission Rd, Ste. 200,
San Diego, CA 92108-2174
Telephone: (858) 693-8833
E-mail: jjc@jimcunninghamlaw.com
- and -
William B. Aitchison, Esq.
PUBLIC SAFETY LABOR GROUP
3021 NE Broadway Street
Portland, OR, 97232
Telephone: (866) 486-5556
E-mail: Will@PSLGlawyers.com
RECKITT BENCKISER: Frank Appeals Ruling in Williams Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party THEODORE H. FRANK filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled DAVID WILLIAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-23564-MGC, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated consumers, contend that the Defendants represented the
products as clinically proven to improve brain performance with
natural ingredients. In reality, the Defendants have no scientific
or clinical proof that Neuriva provides any benefit to the brain or
that its key advertised ingredients can actually access the brain
in sufficient amounts, or in any amount, to provide meaningful
brain performance benefit, according to the complaint. The
misrepresentations led the Plaintiffs and Class members into
believing that the products can actually enhance brain
performance.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and deceptive acts, the
Plaintiffs say they and Class members have been damaged because
they would not have purchased Neuriva had they known that it does
not improve brain performance and was not scientifically and
clinically proven to do so.
On December 15, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman entered a
Report and Recommendations regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Class Counsel's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards.
On March 17, 2022, Judge Marcia G. Cooke entered an Order adopting
Report and Recommendations and granting Motion for Attorney Fees
filed by Plaintiffs Howard Clark, Caroll Anglade, Martiza Angeles,
David Williams, Thomas Matthews.
Mr. Frank now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as David Williams, et al. v.
Reckitt Benckiser, Case No. 22-11232, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on April 18, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- The appellant's brief is due on or before May 31, 2022;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on May
3, 2022 as to Appellant Theodore H. Frank; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before May 17, 2022 as to Appellee David Williams.[BN]
Interested Party-Appellant THEODORE H. FRANK is represented by:
John Michael Andren, Esq.
HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
1629 K St NW Ste 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (703) 582-2499
- and -
M. Frank Bednarz, Esq.
HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
1145 E Hyde Park Blvd Ste 3A
Chicago, IL 60615
Telephone: (801) 706-2690
- and -
Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq.
DHILLON LAW GROUP, INC.
2100 Ponce De Leon Blvd Ste 1290
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 773-1952
Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVID WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; CAROLL ANGLADE, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; HOWARD CLARK; THOMAS
MATTHEWS; and MARTIZA ANGELES are represented by:
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W Morgan St
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
- and -
Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S Gay St Ste 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
- and -
Martha A. Geer, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W Morgan St
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
- and -
Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY
316 S Baylen St Ste 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7000
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy E Fl 2
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
- and -
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
BARBAT MANSOUR & SUCIU, PLLC
1644 Bracken Rd
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
RED ROBIN: Miller Labor Suit Seeks OT Pay for Secondary Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. dba RED ROBIN BURGER AND
SPIRITS EMPORIUMS, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
4:22-cv-02574 (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2022) seeks to recover overtime
compensation, compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, and
other penalties for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers
who have worked as Secondary Managers for Red Robin in the State of
California, in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former Assistant
Managers, Assistant General Managers, and Kitchen Managers who
worked and work for Red Robin which operates more than 50 Red Robin
restaurants in California.
Like many chain restaurants across the state and country, Red Robin
uses a lean staffing model at its restaurants to extract long hours
from salaried Assistant Managers, Assistant General Managers, and
Kitchen Manager (Secondary Managers), even though they spend most
of their days performing physically demanding non-exempt work, such
as cooking, bussing tables, seating customers, serving customers,
cleaning, and delivering food, says the suit.
Because Red Robin allocates insufficient staff hours to each
restaurant, while simultaneously requiring Secondary Managers to
perform the full gamut of customer service-related tasks, the
Plaintiff and Class Members are allegedly misclassified as "exempt"
because they are forced to spend the majority of their working time
performing the same non-managerial tasks being performed by
non-exempt workers. As a result, Secondary Managers work long hours
and often skip their meal and rest breaks, without receiving any
overtime compensation or compensation for missed meal and rest
breaks from Red Robin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. Liu, Esq.
Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, Esq.
LIU PETERSON-FISHER LLP
800 Menlo Avenue, Suite 102
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 461-9000
Facsimile: (650) 460-6967
E-mail: jliu@liupetersonfisher.com
rpf@liupetersonfisher.com
RISKIFIED LTD: Thomas Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip G. Thomas, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RISKIFIED LTD., EIDO GAL, ASSAF FELDMAN,
AGLIKA DOTCHEVA, EREZ SHACHAR, EYAL KISHON, AARON MANKOVSKI,
TANZEEN SYED, JENNIFER CERAN, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BARCLAYS
CAPITAL INC., KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., PIPER SANDLER & CO.,
TRUIST SECURITIES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., LOOP
CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., SIEBERT
WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC and STERN BROTHERS & CO., Case No.
1:22-cv-03545 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022), is brought as a securities
class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Riskified Class A ordinary shares in or traceable to the Company's
July 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO") seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 due to misleading
Registration Statements.
Riskified's proprietary machine learning platform purportedly
identifies the individual behind each online interaction, helping
Riskified's customers, who consist of online merchants, eliminate
risk and uncertainty from their business. Riskified charges
merchants a percentage of every dollar of Gross Merchandise Value
("GMV") that it approves (i.e., is deemed non-fraudulent by
Riskified's proprietary fraud-detection software). If an approved
transaction results in a chargeback (a charge reversal that occurs
when a cardholder disputes a transaction), Riskified reimburses the
merchant for the amount of the lost sale as part of its "chargeback
guarantee."
The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make adequate disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such
documents. Specifically, the Registration Statement created the
misleading impression that Riskified's machine learning platform
had minimized expenses due to chargebacks caused by errors in its
platform and was improving as the Company expanded its business
network.
The statements were inaccurate statements of material fact because
they failed to disclose the following adverse facts that existed at
the time of the IPO: (a) that as Riskified expanded its user base,
the quality of the Company's machine learning platform had
deteriorated (rather than improved as represented in the
Registration Statement), because of, among other things,
inaccuracies in the algorithms associated with onboarding new
merchants and entering new geographies and industries; (b) that
Riskified had expanded its customer base into industries with
relatively high rates of fraud – including partnerships with
cryptocurrency and remittance business – in which the Company had
limited experience and that this expansion has negatively impacted
the effectiveness of the Company's machine learning platform; (c)
that, as a result of (a)-(b) above, Riskified was suffering from
materially higher chargebacks and cost of revenue and depressed
gross profits and gross profit margins during its third fiscal
quarter of 2021; and (d) that, as a result of (a)-(c) above, the
Registration Statement's representations regarding Riskified's
historical financial and operational metrics and purported market
opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business,
operations, and financial results and trajectory of the Company
prior to and at the time of the IPO, and were materially false and
misleading, and lacked a factual basis, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Philip G. Thomas purchased Riskified Class A ordinary
shares in or traceable to the IPO and has been damaged thereby.
Riskified is an eCommerce risk management platform that uses
machine learning to identify fraud.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631/367-7100
Fax: 631/367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312/674-4674
Fax: 312/674-4676
Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212/292-5690
Fax: 212/292-5680
Email: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com
ROGAN SHOES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rogan Shoes, Inc. The
case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rogan Shoes, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03539 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rogan's Shoes -- https://www.rogansshoes.com/ -- is a family-owned
shoe store headquartered in Racine, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SAF-GARD SAFETY: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saf-Gard Safety Shoe
Co. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Saf-Gard Safety Shoe Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-03540 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Saf-Gard Safety Shoe Company -- https://www.safgard.com/ -- is a
second-generation family-owned safety footwear company that has
been in business since 1980.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Haythe Sues Over Deceptive TV's Refresh Rate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SONYA HAYTHE, DOUGLAS SMITH, and PETER COFFIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03509 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022) is
a class action suit against Samsung for the manufacture, marketing,
and sale of certain models of televisions that were represented as
having a "Motion Rate" of 120 Hz, when in fact the televisions at
issue only have an actual refresh rate of 60 Hz.
Samsung sells several models of televisions that prominently claim
to have a "Motion Rate" of 120 Hz. Based on this representation,
reasonable consumers understand and are led to believe that the
Televisions have a refresh rate of 120 Hz.
However, contrary to Defendant's alleged representations and
warranties, the Televisions do not have a refresh rate of 120 Hz.
Instead, the Motion Rate is double the actual refresh rate, and
each of the Televisions has an actual refresh rate of only 60 Hz.
Had Defendant disclosed that the Televisions only had a refresh
rate of 60 Hz, the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes would not
have purchased the Televisions, or would have paid less for the
Televisions than they did, the suit added.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all other similarly situated purchasers to recover damages
and restitution for: (i) violation of New York's General Business
Law ("GBL") section 349; (ii) violation of New York's GBL section
350; and (iii) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Felder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City and County
of San Francisco, et al. The case is styled as Dellan Felder, by
and through his guardian AD, litem, Terry Felder, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc.,
Does 1 through 50, Case No. CGC22599447 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., May 2, 2022).
The case type of suit is stated as "Business Tort."
San Francisco -- https://sf.gov/ -- is a cultural, commercial, and
financial center in the U.S. state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Niall Padraic McCarthy, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 650-697-6000
Fax: 650-697-0577
Email: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Kathryn Ann Young, Esq.
Fed Pub Def/Central Dist., 321 E 2nd St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4202
Phone: 213-894-2854
Fax: 213-894-0081
Email: kathryn_young@fd.org
- and -
Sara M. Stebner, Esq.
STEBNER & ASSOCIATES
870 Market Street, Suite 1285
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 800-610-9641
Fax: 415-362-9801
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Court Sets Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG
CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
2:12-cv-00995-JMV-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John M. Vazquez
entered an order granting the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and
Defendants GlaxoSmithKline and Teva Pharmaceutical's stipulation to
the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification:
Event Date
-- Plaintiffs’ opening brief due: May 17, 2022
-- Defendants' opposition brief due: June 24, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief due: July 20, 2022
GSK is a British multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered
in London, England.
Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company with
headquarters in Petah Tikva, Israel. It specializes primarily in
generic drugs, but other business interests include active
pharmaceutical ingredients and, to a lesser extent, proprietary
pharmaceuticals.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kFge18 at no extra charge.[CC]
SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Severa Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SEVERA, et al., v.
SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06906-NLH-AMD
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Ann Marie Donio entered a scheduling order
as follows:
-- The time within which to file a July 15, 2022
motion to amend the pleadings or
a motion to join new parties will
expire on:
-- The Court will conduct a telephone July 18, 2022
status conference on:
-- Pretrial factual discovery is hereby October 7, 2022
extended to:
-- All expert reports and expert December 6, 2022
disclosures pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.
26(a)(2) on behalf of Plaintiffs
shall be served upon counsel for
Defendants not later than:
-- All expert reports and expert Feb. 6, 2023
disclosures pursuant to FED.R.CIV.
P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Defendants
shall be served upon counsel for
the Plaintiffs not later than:
-- Any motion for class certification July 7, 2023
shall be filed with the Clerk of
the Court no later than:
Solvay is a Belgian multinational chemical company established in
1863, with its headquarters located in Neder-Over-Heembeek,
Brussels, Belgium.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KLre7R at no extra charge.[CC]
SONY INTERACTIVE: Court Junks Majo Complaint with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMA MAJO v. SONY
INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-09054-LB (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order dismissing the
complaint with leave to amend and denies without prejudice the
motion to strike.
The plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 28 days
and must attach as an exhibit a blackline of the second amended
complaint against the first amended complaint (FAC).
The case is a putative class and collective action against Sony
Interactive Entertainment alleging pervasive gender discrimination
at Sony.
The plaintiff -- a female former employee -- brought individual,
class, and collective claims, alleging that (1) she was harassed,
denied promotion, demoted, and terminated, all because of gender
bias, and (2) Sony employees who are female or identify as female
do not receive the same compensation as similarly situated male
employees and are denied promotions.
The plaintiff's FAC has thirteen claims: one collective claim on 25
behalf of herself and a nationwide class under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) as amended by the Equal Pay Act; six state-law
class claims on behalf of herself and a California class; one claim
on behalf of herself and both classes under the Declaratory
Judgment Act; and five individual claims under state law.
Sony moved to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), mainly on the ground that the plaintiff alleges only
unactionable run-of-the-mill personnel activity and thus does not
plausibly plead claims. It also moved to strike the claims under
Rule 12(f) on the ground that the allegations are "highly
individual" and do not establish that a class or collective action
is procedurally proper. The court grants the motion to dismiss
(with leave to amend) for most claims because the allegations are
mostly conclusory, but the following individual claims survive:
statutory and common-law wrongful termination, whistleblower
retaliation under Cal. Lab. Code section 1102.5(b), and retaliation
under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Because the court dismisses the federal claim, though, it does not
have jurisdiction over the state claims and so dismisses all
claims. The court denies the motion to strike without prejudice
because it is premature to decide it based on an inadequately pled
complaint.
Sony Interactive, formerly known as Sony Computer Entertainment, is
a multinational video game and digital entertainment company wholly
owned by Japanese multinational conglomerate Sony.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OYzVz6 at no extra charge.[CC]
SPECTRUM HOME: Fails to Pay OT Wages for HHAs Under FLSA, OPPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA MARKLE, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SPECTRUM HOME HEALTH CARE, LLC and MOHAMED ABDILLAHI,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00673 (N.D. Ohio, April 27, 2022) challenges
practices of the Defendants by which they willfully violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio's overtime compensation statute,
and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.
The Defendants allegedly failed to pay overtime compensation to
Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of one and one-half times
employees' regular rate of pay.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins who may
join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and all
members of the Ohio Class as non-exempt home health care aides
("HHAs").
Plaintiff Markle worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt HHA from
April 26, 2020 through early February 2022. Nearly all of her
services were provided to patients in their homes within Cuyahoga
County.
The Defendants provide home healthcare services to patients
throughout Northeast Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
Kathleen Harris, Esq.
TITTLE & PERLMUTER
4106 Bridge Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 308-1522
Facsimile: (888) 604-9299
E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
katie@tittlelawfirm.com
SPERL INC: Neubauer Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Employees Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR NEUBAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPERL INC., d/b/a Subway and MICHELLE L. SPERL, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00236 (W.D. Wis., April 27, 2022) alleges that Sperl
has denied Plaintiff Neubauer and the putative class members of
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
as well as the Wisconsin law.
The Plaintiff and the putative class members are, or were, hourly
employees of Defendants since April 27, 2019. Sperl allgedly has a
common policy and practice that fails to pay Plaintiff and the
putative classes members for all hours worked in excess of 40 each
workweek.
In addition, Sperl has a common policy and practice of shifting
Plaintiff and the putative class members' hours worked from one
workweek to another to avoid paying overtime premiums.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
5150 N. Port Washington Road, Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
smurshid@hq-law.com
tmaynard@hq-law.com
STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Burchett Sues Over Unpaid OT for Recruiters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER BURCHETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01701-LMM (N.D. Ga., April 29, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated recruiters overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a recruiter from
approximately June 2017 through April 2021.
Staffmark Investment LLC is an employment and staffing company
operating throughout the U.S., including in Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@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
STATE FARM: Faces Stelly Class Suit Over Roofing Repair Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL STELLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, insert similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01116-JDC-KK (W.D. La., April
27, 2022) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant for breach of
contract, violation of statutory duty to make timely payment,
breach of the duty of good faith, unjust enrichment, and for
declaratory judgment for Defendant's improper use of artificially
low cost estimates to calculate and pay roofing repair costs when
adjusting claims by homeowners.
This class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated homeowners who purchased homeowner's insurance policies
sold by the Defendant to cover properties in Lousiana, who have
made insurance claims for roofing repair pursuant to those
policies, and received payment pursuant to those claims, seeks to
redress an egregious problem with an automated claims estimation
system that substantially underpays and affects all class members.
The computer function that gives rise to this action is applied in
every roofing repair estimate performed by Defendant using the
Xactware software; it is literally set to the incorrect "default
setting" causing common underpayments to all class members and
insureds as a result.
Upon receipt of claims for roofing repair from Plaintiff and Class
Members, the Defendant assigns a claim adjuster to the claim to
verify the claim and to determine the amount of payment to be made
in order to satisfy the claim. These adjusters enter information
about the damaged roof into an automated computer estimating
program called Xactimate. Insurance companies are not required by
law to use the Xactimate program, but they do so for their own
convenience.
The Xactimate system assigns a default price for each line item of
roofing repair to be undertaken.
Thus, because Defendant's estimates and payments of roofing repair
claims use the costs of work if performed by a demolition crew,
Defendant’s estimates of homeowners’ roofing repair claims (and
payments made thereon) are necessarily and, by definition, always
below the actual cash value of such repairs, a fact of which
Defendant is very much aware, the lawsuit says.
However, the policies sold by Defendant to Plaintiff and Class
Members require that Defendant pay to policyholders for any roofing
repair claim covered by the insurance policies the actual cash
value ("ACV") of roofing repair work, not the cash value of
demolition work.
Accordingly, the Defendants' purported ACV payments to Plaintiff
and Class Members for roofing repair claims are artificially and
unlawfully low, deficient and do not represent actual cash value
for such work. Yet Defendant, despite knowing this, has not altered
its conduct and continues to knowingly provide these improperly
deficient payments.
As a result, the Defendant has breached its contractual obligations
to Plaintiff and Class Members, breached its duty of good faith,
and has been unjustly enriched in that it has retained and not paid
out monies owing to Plaintiff and Class Members, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this suit to require Defendant to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members the difference between payments made
using the improper demolition labor rates and the payment that
should have been made had Defendant used the proper roofing labor
rates to reflect the actual labor burden for roofing removal work
including the cost of workers' compensation premium charged for
those lawfully engaged in the act of doing roofing work and as as
required by the Defendant's insurance contracts with insured.
The Plaintiff has owned the residence located at 4209 E. Jevon
Lane, Lake Charles, Louisiana (the "Premises") and has resided at
same. The Plaintiff was the named policyholder of a homeowners
insurance policy issued by Defendant.
State Farm is an insurance company with its principal place of
business in Bloomington, Illinois. The Defendant is authorized to
sell homeowner and property insurance policies in the State of
Louisiana and is engaged in the insurance business in the State of
Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Somer G. Brown, Esq.
Michael K. Cox, Esq.
Kevin L. Camel, Esq.
Richard E. Wilson, Esq.
COX, COX, FILO, CAMEL & WILSON
723 Broad Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 436-6611
Facsimile: (337) 436-9541
E-mail: mike@coxatty.com
kevin@coxatty.com
- and -
Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
701 Poydras St., Ste. 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 525-8100
Facsimile: (504) 584-5259
E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com
- and -
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com
abarnett@cpmlegal.com
SUN WEST MORTGAGE: Rolle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Karlene Rolle, and all those similarly situated v. SUN WEST
MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-05768-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla.,
May 2, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as she was not paid
overtime for hours worked over 40 per week, even though she was a
"non-exempt" employee, and thus entitled to such wages under
federal law.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours of overtime in
a workweek between June 15, 2020 and May 5, 2021. The Defendant
paid Plaintiff some overtime, but not for all hours worked in
excess of 40 nor did Defendant pay Plaintiff her correct rate of
overtime pay. In addition to the unpaid overtime hours worked, the
Defendant underpaid the Plaintiff for all overtime hours it did
pay, as it did not properly calculate the regular rate of pay to
include the non-discretionary bonus per loan funded and closed for
which the Plaintiff was responsible. The Plaintiff and was
underpaid and also did not receive overtime for hours worked over
40 per workweek during her employment during the last two years,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a relationship manager.
The Defendant is a privately owned mortgage-backed originator and
service company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayton M. Connors, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF CLAYTON M. CONNORS, PLLC.
4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 32A
Pensacola, FLa 32503
Phone: (850) 473-0401
Fax: (850) 473-1388
Email: cmc@westconlaw.com
SYSCO JACKSONVILLE: A1A Burrito Appeals Mislabeling Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs A1A Burrito Works, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled A1A Burrito Works, Inc.,
a Florida corporation, A1A Burrito Works Taco Shop 2, Inc., a
Florida corporation and Juniper Beach Enterprises, Inc., a Florida
corporation, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated
v. Sysco Jacksonville, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-00041-TJC-JBT, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was removed
from the Florida 4th Judicial Circuit for Duval County to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on January 13,
2021.
The central allegation in the complaint is that Sysco sold and
distributed poultry products that weighed less than the net weight
declared on the product packaging in violation of the Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. In support of that
premise, Plaintiffs assert a violation of federal labeling law,
alleging that "[f]ederal labeling laws require the average net
quantity of contents of Packaged Foods to be at least equal to the
net quantity of contents declared on the label." The Plaintiffs
also cite Sysco's quality assurance program where it represents
that its packaged food products comply with FDA/USDA/FSIS Food
Product labeling requirements.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs' deceptive and unfair
packaging and labeling claim is undoubtedly governed by and subject
to federal law because it requires construction of federal law and
standards.
On October 4, 2021, the Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss
second amended complaint which the Court granted on March 23, 2022
through an order entered by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. A Clerk's
Judgment was also entered on March 24, 2022, dismissing this case
with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs are now seeking a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as A1A Burrito Works, Inc., et al.
v. Sysco Jacksonville, Inc., Case No. 22-11330, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on April
22, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before May 11, 2022 as to Appellants; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before May 25, 2022 as to Appellees.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants A1A BURRITO WORKS, INC., a Florida
corporation; A1A BURRITO WORKS TACO SHOP 2, INC., a Florida
corporation; and JUNIPER BEACH ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida
corporation, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
are represented by:
Ryan McGee, Esq.
John Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin St 6th Fl
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
- and -
Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
TADLER LAW LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza Ste 1920
New York, NY 10119-0165
Telephone: (212) 946-9300
- and -
Matthew Peterson, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Erika Roxanne Willis, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
1101 E Cumberland Ave Ste 201H #105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
- and -
Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
TADLER LAW LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza Ste 1920
New York, NY 10119-0165
Telephone: (212) 946-9300
Defendant-Appellee SYSCO JACKSONVILLE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:
Kyle Allen Diamantas, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
200 S Orange Ave Ste 2900
PO Box 1549
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 422-6600
- and -
Desislava Docheva, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
100 SE 3rd Ave Ste 1620
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Telephone: (954) 470-3164
- and -
Samuel L. Felker, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
211 Commerce St Ste 1000
Nashville, TN 37201-1819
Telephone: (615) 726-5767
TARGET CORPORATION: Lidocaine Patches' Label "Deceptive," Ary Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHEJUANA ARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-02625-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for quasi-contract/unjust enrichment and
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California's False
Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its lidocaine patches. The Defendant advertises its lidocaine
patches to provide "pain-relief" using a "maximum strength" dose of
lidocaine for "up to 8 hours." In reality, the Defendant's
lidocaine patches regularly peel off the body within a few hours,
and oftentimes minutes, after being properly applied. Furthermore,
the patches do not contain or deliver the maximum amount of
lidocaine available with, or without, a prescription. As a result
of its deceptive conduct, the Defendant is, and continues to be,
unjustly enriched at the expense of its customers.
Target Corporation is an American big box department store chain,
with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and –
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
- and –
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC.
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
TD BANK: Berry FDUTPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled NICOLA BERRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No.
CACE-22-004614, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
April 28, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:22-cv-60826-KMM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing after the
Plaintiff and similarly situated residents in Florida with a TD
Bank account allegedly incurred unreimbursed losses due to fraud
after signing up for Zelle Service, TD Bank's digital payment
system.
TD Bank, N.A. is a national banking association headquartered in
Delaware. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Val Leppert, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 462-6021
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: vleppert@KSLAW.com
TENANTSAFE INC: Ruderman Suit Alleges Violations of FCRA
--------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS U. CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TENANTSAFE, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02532 (D.N.J., April 29, 2022) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
TenantSafe, Inc. offers tenant background screening services to
property owners and managers in the multi-family housing industry.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin P. Skolnick, Esq.
SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 305
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 403-0100
Email: martin@skolnicklegalgroup.com
TOLUCA LAKE: Rivadeneyra Sues Over Retaliation, Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA RIVADENEYRA and MARIO DE LA CRUZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOLUCA LAKE
COLLECTIVE, INC.; LOS ANGELES FARMERS, INC.; ELISE MANAGEMENT,
INC.; HEZEKIAH INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-99, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22STCV14074 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 28,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
California Labor Code, California's Unfair Competition Law, and
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) including
retaliation, discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination,
wrongful discharge, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to pay all wages due, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalty, failure to indemnify employee,
failure to provide employment records upon demand, and false
imprisonment.
Plaintiffs Rivadeneyra and De La Cruz were hired by the Defendants
as cannabis trimmers from September 7, 2021 and around June 2019,
respectively, until their termination on July 6, 2021.
Toluca Lake Collective, Inc. is a cannabis store in Los Angeles,
California.
Los Angeles Farmers, Inc. is a cannabis dispensary located in Los
Angeles, California.
Elise Management, Inc. is a management company in Los Angeles,
California.
Hezekiah Incorporated is a non-profit organization in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan Romero, Esq.
Robert S. Myong, Esq.
Elizabeth Villarreal, Esq.
ROMERO LAW, APC
251 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 930
Pasadena, CA 91101-4873
Telephone: (626) 396-9900
Facsimile: (626) 396-9990
Email: ajr@romerolaw.com
rsm@romerolaw.com
ev@romerolaw.com
TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP: Smit Files RICO Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toms River Township,
et al. The case is styled as Gerald Smit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toms River Township,
John Does, to be later identified, Ocean County, NJ, Case No.
3:22-cv-02594-FLW-RLS (D.N.J., May 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeering
(RICO) Act for Racketeer/Corrupt Organization.
Toms River -- https://tomsrivertownship.com/ -- is a township in
Ocean County, New Jersey, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
TOTAL RENAL CARE: Walters Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Total Renal Care,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lorraine Walters, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Total
Renal Care, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00319163-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 2, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Total Renal Care, Inc. offers health care services. The Company
offers kidney and renal dialysis, transplant, disease management,
emergency care, insurance, and financial management suppor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Junk Goble Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GOBLE, et al., v.
TRUMBULL INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:20-cv-05577-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order denying
Trumbull's motion to dismiss.
The Court agrees with the Gobles that the allegations in their
original complaint reasonably encompassed their window claim. They
set forth a short and plain statement that Trumbull had not fully
paid the amounts owed to them under the Policy. Certainly, their
FAC contains specificity that the original complaint did not with
regard to alleged window damage. However, that lack of specificity
would not have barred them from seeking damages related to their
windows without the filing of the FAC -- that is the purpose of
discovery, to flush out the specific detail into what amounts the
Gobles claim were owed and not paid under the Policy. Thus, the
Gobles' window claim was timely brought within the required
two-year contractual limitation. That Court cannot consider the
Gobles' deposition testimony as to their window damage under Rule
12(b)(6).
Trumbull brings its motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiffs lack
standing and that they have failed to state a claim.
The Plaintiffs John and Paula Goble filed this action as a
purported class action against Trumbull, a Connecticut corporation
with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
Trumbull is a "property insurer that sells property insurance
coverage for, inter alia, homeowners, condo and/or commercial
buildings" in Ohio and other states.
The Gobles were insured against property damage on their residence
in Dublin, Ohio by Trumbull; Policy No. 55RBD944752 covered direct
physical loss to the dwelling and other structures on the insured
property except as specifically excluded or limited. On September
1, 2019, the Gobles suffered damage covered by their Policy.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/39F9Jtd at no extra charge.[CC]
UMPQUA BANK: Court Enters Class Cert Scheduling Order in Camenisch
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELA CAMENISCH, et al.,
v. UMPQUA BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-05905-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order regarding class
certification scheduling.
The Court says that Plaintiffs' motions seeking an order setting
briefing schedules and hearing dates with respect to defendant's
anticipated motion for summary judgment and defendants motion
exclude testimony of plaintiffs damages expert offered to support
class certification, will not be heard on separate dates.
The Plaintiffs alternatively request that the motions all be heard
on August 25, 2022. While that may be later than defendant would
prefer, all the motions will be heard on that date. The parties
remain free to negotiate any extended briefing schedules for any
matters not already fully briefed, as long as reply briefs are
filed no less than two weeks prior to the hearing. If the parties
cannot reach agreement, the timing provisions of the local rules
and/or existing stipulated schedules will apply -- no further
requests for court intervention in setting briefing schedules will
be entertained.
The parties subsequently stipulated to a schedule for briefing the
motion to exclude. As to the summary judgment motion, defendant
offered to provide additional time, but strenuously opposes
plaintiffs attempt to have it postponed until after the class
certification motion is heard.
Umpqua Holdings is a financial holding company based in downtown
Portland, Oregon, United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/383IMic at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ct. Extends Class Cert Deadlines in LD Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH and CJ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC., a
New York corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order extending class certification deadlines
a follows:
Event New Date
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: July 15, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class August 17, 2022
Certification:
-- Defendants' Opposition to Class September 28, 2022
Certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support November 9, 2022
of Class Certification:
-- Hearing on Class Certification December 6, 2022
Motion:
United Behavioral Health, which manages behavioral health services
for UnitedHealthcare members.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w7Ovvo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
Aaron R. Modiano, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 677-4030
E-mail: Matt.Lavin@agg.com
Aaron.Modiano@agg.com
- and -
David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
DL LAW GROUP
345 Franklin Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 678 5050
Facsimile: (415) 358 8484
E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
katie@dllawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
Geoffrey Sigler, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: lblas@gibsondunn.com
gsigler@gibsondunn.com
UNITED OF OMAHA: Scheduling Order on Class Cert Bids Entered
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN NIEVES,
individually, and on behalf of a class, v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-01415-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen S. Crawford
entered a separate scheduling order regulating class discovery and
the filing of any class certification motions:
1. Fact and class discovery are not July 22, 2022
bifurcated but all class discovery
shall be completed by all parties
on or before:
2. Any discovery motions related to August 19, 2022
class certification shall be filed
no later than:
3. A motion for class certification September 19, 2022
shall be filed no later than:
United of Omaha offers term and permanent life insurance policies.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39EQnV2 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: Court Stays Proceedings in Rizvanovic Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE RIZVANOVIC, v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01278-BAK (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order granting
defendant's motion to stay proceedings.
The Defendant shall file a status report within 14 days of the
Supreme Court’s ruling in Southwest Airlines, the Court says.
On March 16, 2022, United Parcel filed a motion to stay proceedings
pending the Supreme Court's decision in Southwest Airlines Co. v.
Saxon, 142 S. Ct. 638 19 (2021).
The Plaintiff, Michelle Rizvanovic, filed an opposition on April 6,
2022. The Defendant filed its reply on April 13, 2022.
The Plaintiff worked for UPS as a seasonal personal vehicle driver
(PVD) during UPS’s "Peak" season, from October 22, 2019 to
December 31, 2019.
The Plaintiff was based out of the Stockdale Center, which is
located in Bakersfield, California. As a PVD, Plaintiff delivered
packages from her personal vehicle. The Plaintiff only delivered
packages to addresses within the state of California.
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company founded in 1907.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w5I5Nt at no extra charge.[CC]
USAA GENERAL: Court Extends Case Schedule Deadlines in Drozdz Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGATA DROZDZ, an
individual and TEAKRE VEST, an individual, v. USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01010-JHC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order extending case
schedule deadlines as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
- Plaintiffs' Motion for May 6, 2022 Sept. 9, 2022
Class Certification
and any supporting
expert reports:
- Deadline for completion June 17, 2022 Parties to submit
of expert discovery joint proposed
relating to class schedule within
certification issues 1 week of filing
- Plaintiffs' expert(s): of motion for class
certification
- Defendants' Response to Sept. 2, 2022 Parties to submit
Plaintiffs' Motion for joint proposed
Class Certification and schedule within
any supporting expert 1 week of filing
reports: of motion for class
certification
USAA General Indemnity Co operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ff849q at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34 th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
Email: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Young-Ji Ham, Esq.
WASHINGTON INJURY LAWYERS PLLC
1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (425) 312-3057
E-mail: youngji@washinjurylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jay Williams, Esq.
Paula M. Ketcham, Esq.
CORR CRONIN LLP
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 258-5629
Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
E-mail: jay.williams@afslaw.com
paula.ketcham@afslaw.com
- and -
Michael A Moore, Esq.
Victoria Ainsworth, Esq.
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98154-1051
Telephone: (206) 625-8600
Facsimile: (206) 625-0900
E-mail: mmoore@corrcronin.com
tainsworth@corrcronin.com
VANGUARD CHESTER: Violates Fiduciary Duties for Retirement Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAIFAN LIANG and JULIA LUCAS, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated v. VANGUARD CHESTER FUNDS, MORTIMER J.
BUCKLEY, CHRISTINE M. , JOHN E. SCHADL, EMERSON U. FULLWOOD, AMY
GUTMANN, F. JOSEPH LOUGHREY, MARK LOUGHRIDGE, SCOTT C. MALPASS,
DEANNA MULLIGAN, ANDRÉ F. PEROLD, SARAH BLOOM RASKIN, PETER F.
VOLANAKIS, and THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01677
(E.D. Pa., April 29, 2022) alleges that in gross violation of its
fiduciary duties and other legal duties, Vanguard did not consider
other options at its disposal to provide cheaper options for
retirement plans without harming investors with taxable accounts.
Mutual funds are typically organized as trusts and managed by
trustees. The trustees, along with officers and advisors of the
mutual funds, are required to manage the fund for the benefit of
all its shareholders. Trustees cannot favor larger investors, while
disregarding and injuring smaller investors.
Vanguard was founded to offer low-cost mutual fund investments
directly to everyday investors. Vanguard states that its "core
purpose" is "[t]o take a stand for all investors, to treat them
fairly, and to give them the best chance for investment success."
Throughout its history, Vanguard often lived up to that purpose,
becoming one of the most respected and successful investment
companies in the world. Vanguard, however, has harmed a group of
smaller investors, the very people it was founded to serve in order
to cater to the retirement plans that drive its bottom line.
Vanguard offers "set-it-and-forget-it" target date retirement
funds. These funds are organized as a trust and managed by the same
trustees. The investment strategy is based on a target retirement
year, such as 2020 or 2050. Vanguard offers two categories of
target date funds: (1) funds for individuals and retirement plans
with under $100 million ("Retail Funds"); and (2) funds for
retirement plans with over $100 million ("Institutional Funds").
Although the strategy and investments of the Retail and
Institutional Funds are the same, the Institutional Funds are
charged lower management fees, says the suit.
When target date funds sell assets, federal tax law requires that
they distribute any capital gains to shareholders. Investors who
hold target date funds in tax advantaged accounts do not incur any
tax liability, rather can simply reinvest these distributions.
Vanguard's larger investors, such retirement plans, fall into this
category. Vanguard also markets and sells its target date funds
directly to smaller, ordinary investors who hold these funds in
taxable accounts.
These investors must pay taxes on these distributions, even when
the distributions are automatically reinvested, which is commonly
done. For these investors, if there is a significant sell-off of
assets in their target date fund, this results in significant tax
bills.
Typically, capital gains distributions are minimal as target date
funds do not sell many assets. Beginning in December of 2020,
however, Vanguard itself caused a massive sell off from its Retail
Funds. Vanguard decided to allow access to its Institutional Funds
to all retirement plans with at least $5 million. Now, retirement
plans that were invested in the Retail Funds could sell their
shares and transfer over to cheaper, but otherwise the same as they
hold the same assets as Institutional Funds. Unsurprisingly, this
is what occurred.
In order to raise cash needed to redeem so many shares, the Retail
Funds were forced to sell off a large percentages of their assets.
When these assets were sold, the Retail Funds recognized capital
gains on the assets. The resulting capital gains distributions to
investors were unprecedented, indeed 40 times previous levels.
While retirement plans in non-taxable accounts did not have any
impact, investors with taxable accounts were hit with large tax
liabilities.
Vanguard's target date funds are organized as Vanguard Chester
Funds, a Delaware statutory trust. Its shareholders are domiciled
throughout the nation. The Trust and each of its funds, including
the Institutional and Retail Funds, were managed, at the relevant
times, by the same group of trustees and officers.
Vanguard's target date funds invest money across asset classes
based on a specific or target retirement year, such as 2020, 2035,
or 2050. The target date funds buy and hold other Vanguard funds
such as Vanguard stock and bond index funds. As the target date
approaches, the target date funds become more conservatively
invested, with more bonds and fewer stocks. As a result, as
investors get closer to retirement and likely closer to needing the
money, their portfolio becomes more conservative and less volatile,
the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
WALMART INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Thomas Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANIELLE THOMAS, for
herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC., and
SAM’S WEST, INC., d/b/a SAM’S CLUB, Case No. 2:18-cv-04717-MMB
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered a joint
proposed scheduling order as follows:
-- The Parties shall complete their July 15, 2022
class discovery efforts by:
-- The Parties shall submit a joint July 15, 2022
report in writing to the Court on
or before:
-- Plaintiff's Motion for final FLSA Aug. 15, 2022
certification, Plaintiff's Motion
for Rule 23 Class Certification
and dispositive motions by either
party shall be filed by:
-- Oppositions to the above Motions Sept. 16, 2022
shall be filed by:
-- Replies in support of such Sept. 30, 2022
Motions (limited to 15 pages)
shall be filed by:
-- Sur-Replies (limited to 10 pages) Oct. 14, 2022
to address new arguments or
citations cited in the Parties'
reply brief(s) shall be filed by:
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yb3asx at no extra charge.[CC]
WIPRO LLC: Ahrendt Sues Over Call Center Agents' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER AHRENDT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WIPRO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-02492 (D.N.J., April 28, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Ahrendt was employed by the Defendant as call center
agent.
WIPRO, LLC provides information technology services. The Company
offers analytical, technical, and programming services, as well as
renders product engineering, mobility, digital, analytics,
information management, and consulting services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (201) 630-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
Email: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.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 ***