/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220512.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 12, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 89 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Hazardous Chemical Waste 3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Water Contamination 3M COMPANY: Faces Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit 3M COMPANY: Faces Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit 3M COMPANY: Suit Over Hazardous Chemical Exposure Pending 3M COMPANY: Suit Over Improper Disposal of Chemical Waste Pending 7-ELEVEN INC: Hess Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention A3H FOODS: Centeno-Rrodriguez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Alleges ALPHA TRANSPORTS: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says AMAZON.COM INC: Denies Employment Benefits, Mahone USERRA Suit Says AMAZON.COM INC: Fitzl Sues Over Mislabeled Non-Drowsy Products AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Parras Suit Removed to N.D. California ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Underpays Insurance Benefits, Pregozen Suit Says BYRD COOKIE: Reply to Ortega Class Action Complaint Due on May 16 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack COLONIAL STAFFING: Brooke Dean Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA: German Sues Over Debt Collection Practices D'ARTAGNAN INC: Harris Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NJWHL, WPL DA AFGHANISTAN BANK: S.D. New York Dismisses Wodensheck Class Suit DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Moure Says DVL EXPRESS: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Tsybikov Suit FCA US: Faces Beeney Suit Over Unlawful Phantom Freight Charges FCA US: Faces Lindsey Suit Over Inflation of Destination Charges FILIPPO VICARI: Ordonez Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Mallozzi Sues Over Share Price Drop JANET LLC: Christa Hinds Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, MFWSA JEFF'S HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Power Suit Alleges JUUL LABS: Woodland Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Tyrone Dorn Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & AMWA MDL 1570: Bid to Appear Pro Hac Vice in 9/11 Attacks Suit Denied META PLATFORMS: Cook Sues Over Copyright Infringement NETFLIX INC: Faces Pirani Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop NOBLE ENERGY: Colorado Court Tosses Boulter Suit Without Prejudice NOMI HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Poole Suit Alleges ONE MEDICAL: Etri Sues Over Deceptive Annual Membership Fees OPORTUN INC: Faces Falcon Suit Over Debt Collection Practices PASA PARCEL: Davis Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime PJ FAST: Courtney Seeks Minimum Wages for Drivers Under FLSA RAGUBOY CORP: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL REDBUBBLE INC: Faces Wallster Suit Over Copyright Infringement SALSAS OF TITUSVILLE: Paz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SHARED IMAGING: Court Can't Approve Class Settlement in Ranger Suit SKYWEST AIRLINES: Stockbridge Sues Over Flight Crew's Unpaid Wages UNITED SERVICES: Court Refuses to Stay Discovery in Advanced Suit UNITED STATES: Officer May File 2nd Amended Complaint v. Air Force VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Riviera Beach Suit Over Stock Price Drop WEST COAST: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Garcia Says ********* 3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Hazardous Chemical Waste ---------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in Delaware, 3M, together with several co-defendants, is defending one putative class action brought by individuals alleging polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination of their water supply resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities. Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the metal plating facilities. DuPont, Chemours, and the metal platers have also been named as defendants. This case has been removed from state court to federal court, and plaintiffs have withdrawn its motion to remand to state court and filed an amended complaint. 3M has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In February 2021, the court raised the question whether subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act was proper, issued an order requiring the parties to brief the issue and denied defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to renew pending the court's ruling on jurisdiction. An oral argument was held in September 2021. In December 2021, the court issued an order retaining jurisdiction over the case and 3M renewed its previous motion to dismiss, which remains pending. The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments and apparatus based in St. Paul MN. 3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Water Contamination ----------------------------------------------------- 3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that the company, together with co-defendants, is also defending a putative class action in federal court in Georgia, in which plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a class of individual ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia who allege their water supply was contaminated by polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) discharged from a textile mill. In May 2021, the City of Summerville filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, which was granted in March 2022. 3M's motion to dismiss the case was denied in March 2022. This case remains in early stages of litigation. The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments and apparatus based in St. Paul MN. 3M COMPANY: Faces Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit --------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in March 2022, a putative class action was filed in the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of ratepayers of the City of Guin Water Works and Sewer Board (Guin WWSB). Defendants include 3M, the Guin landfill, the Guin WWSB, and some waste transporters. The plaintiffs allege that their water supply has been contaminated with polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which has caused them property damage and unspecified damage to health interests. The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments and apparatus based in St. Paul MN. 3M COMPANY: Faces Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit --------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in South Carolina, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in South Carolina state court against 3M, DuPont and DuPont related entities in March 2022. The lawsuit alleges property damage and personal injuries from contamination from polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds used and disposed of at the textile plant known as the Galey & Lord plant from 1966 until 2016. The complaint seeks remedies including damages, punitive damages, and medical monitoring. The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments and apparatus based in St. Paul MN. 3M COMPANY: Suit Over Hazardous Chemical Exposure Pending --------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that a case originally filed in Georgia state court was brought by individuals asserting polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination by the Georgia carpet manufacturers and seeking economic damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of Rome and Floyd County water subscribers. This case has been removed to federal court, where 3M filed a motion to dismiss a series of amended complaints, resulting in the dismissal of plaintiffs' negligence claim against 3M. This case is proceeding through discovery. The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments and apparatus based in St. Paul MN. 3M COMPANY: Suit Over Improper Disposal of Chemical Waste Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in Michigan, one consolidated putative class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against 3M and Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine). The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M's product contaminated the environment and drinking water sources after disposal. In June 2021, the court partially denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, by granting the motions to dismiss the negligence claim only insofar as the plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries, as opposed to property damage. In September 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, including to add four new named plaintiffs and putative class representatives. 3M and Wolverine filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and opposed plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. The court has set a trial date in June 2022. The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments and apparatus based in St. Paul MN. 7-ELEVEN INC: Hess Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention -------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN HESS, CAROLYN JOHNSON, THOMAS MCKEE, AND BARBARA MOSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 7-ELEVEN, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02131 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2022) seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of 7-Eleven in collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing consumers with data retention and destruction policies, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to comply with its duties under Illinois law and invaded Plaintiffs' and the Class' privacy through the unauthorized collection, retention, and use of Plaintiffs' biometric data. The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Illinois who visited 7-Eleven stores. 7-Eleven, Inc. is an American multinational chain of retail convenience stores, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette St. Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com A3H FOODS: Centeno-Rrodriguez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTELA CENTENO-RODRIGUEZ, ANGELICA MANCERA Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. A3H FOODS, LP., d/b/a Jack in The Box, Case No. 4:22-cv-01413 (S.D. Tex., May 3, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought to obtain relief on behalf of a class of individuals who and related work for the Defendant, to recover unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant owns and operates Jack in the Box restaurants. Defendant employs Plaintiffs, and would-be Plaintiffs, to prepare food, work as cashiers, conduct inventory, and provide Plaintiff's Original Complaint customer service to clients at their restaurant. The FLSA collective group consists of all individuals who operate(d) as cooks, cashiers, or food processors for Defendant and who are, or were, classified as employees working for the Defendant at any time during the applicable limitations period. This action challenges both the classification of cooks/cashiers and Defendant's denial to Plaintiffs, and the Class, of the rights, obligations, privileges, and benefits owed to them as employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq. Eddie Hodges, Jr., Esq. KENNARD LAW PC 5120 Woodway Dr., Suite 10010 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 742-0900 Facsimile: (832) 558-9412 E-mail: Alfonso.Kennard@kennardlaw.com Eddie.Hodges@kennardlaw.com ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- NADIA WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02316 (N.D., Ill., May 3, 2022) alleges that the Defendant fails to pay wages, and proper overtime for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Ac. Plaintiff Ward was employed by the Defendant as staff. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION provides property-liability insurance as well as other types of insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 Email: matt@parmet.law - and - Michael N. Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 55 E. Monroe St., Ste. 3800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (313) 739-1951 Facsimile: (313) 739-1976 Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com ALPHA TRANSPORTS: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEANETTE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALPHA TRANSPORTS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01704 (E.D. Pa., May 3, 2022) alleges that Alpha Transports failed to pay wages, including agreed wages and proper overtime in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jones brings this lawsuit to recover these unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Alpha Transports to her and Alpha Transports' other non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Alpha Transports' decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack. Like many other companies across the United States, Alpha Transports' timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Alpha Transports' organization. As a result, Alpha Transports' workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium for all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack, says the suit. Jeanette Jones is one such Alpha Transports worker. Alpha Transports could have easily implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn’t. Instead, Alpha Transports used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees. Alpha Transports pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce. Alpha Transports made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on front-line workers—average Americans—who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages to make ends meet. Alpha Transports is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law AMAZON.COM INC: Denies Employment Benefits, Mahone USERRA Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- YASMINE MAHONE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594 (W.D. Wash., May 4, 2022) is a civil class action brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The complaint is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a nationwide Class of all persons similarly situated, including current and former employees of Amazon.com, Inc., who were or are currently serving in the United States Armed Services or National Guard. Allegedly, Amazon knowingly and willfully violated USERRA by discriminating against the Plaintiff and the Class members, and by denying them employment benefits "on the basis of" their "obligation to perform service in a uniformed service." As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Amazon, as set forth in this count, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injuries and damages including but not limited to loss of past and future benefits, all to his damage in an amount to be proven at trial. The Plaintiff was employed by Amazon from July 16, 2020 until she was terminated on October 18, 2020. At all times relevant, the Plaintiff worked for Amazon in Bessemer, Alabama. From October 16 through 18, 2020, Plaintiff was performing military service obligations, also known as a "drill weekend." This drill weekend was a three-day period and required the Plaintiff's attendance from approximately 7:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. each day. Prior to the October drill weekend, the Plaintiff timely notified Amazon of her impending military service obligations and took military leave without pay ("LWOP") from Thursday, October 15 through Sunday, October 18. Amazon employees used a mobile phone application ("app") called "AtoZ" to, monitor their schedules, view documents such as timesheets, paystubs, etc., and input various human resources inquires such as requests for time off, or in Plaintiff's case the notification of her military service obligations. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. It has been referred to as "one of the most influential economic and cultural forces in the world", and is one of the world's most valuable brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kalish, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 826-5354 E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com - and - Brian J. Lawler, Esq. PILOT LAW, P.C. 850 Beech Street, Suite 713 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 255-2398 E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com - and - Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW, APC 101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - and - Kevin L. Wilson, Esq. KEVIN WILSON LAW PLLC 3110 Horton Avenue Louisville, KY 40220 Telephone: (502) 354-3330 E-mail: kevin@kwilsonlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Fitzl Sues Over Mislabeled Non-Drowsy Products -------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN FITZL and SAMANTHA HORTON, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00544 (W.D. Wash., April 22, 2022) is a class action against Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and sale of Amazon's Basic Care-branded "Non-Drowsy" over-the-counter cold and flu medicines that contain Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide. According to the complaint, the non-drowsy products state prominently on the front of their labels that they are "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime" products. By prominently labeling the products as such, the Defendant led Plaintiffs and other consumers to believe that the non-drowsy products do not cause drowsiness, and that drowsiness is not a side effect of the products. However, one of the active ingredients in the non-drowsy products is Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide. While the average consumer may not be aware, drowsiness is a documented side effect of the ingredient at dosages recommended by Defendant in respect to the non-drowsy products. Authorities such as the National Library of Medicine and Mayo Clinic list drowsiness as a side effect of this ingredient, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the Class for equitable relief and to recover damages and restitution for: (i) breach of express warranty; (ii) violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (iii) violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (iv) unjust enrichment; (v) negligent misrepresentation; and (vi) intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff Fitzl purchased a Basic Care Vapor Ice Daytime and Nighttime Severe Cold and Flu combo pack from Amazon.com on January 26, 2022 while Plaintiff Horton purchased a Basic Care Daytime Severe and Nighttime Severe Cold and Flu combo pack on September 13, 2021. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ralph Glenn Phillips, Esq. Douglas Weinmaster, Esq. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM 17410 133rd Avenue NE, Suite 301 Woodinville, WA 98072 Telephone: (425) 482-1111 Facsimile: (425) 482-6653 E-mail: Glenn@Justiceforyou.com Dweinmaster@justiceforyou.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Parras Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edwin Parras, Robert Parras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Financial Resources, Inc., Case No. 22CV009276 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 3, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-02659 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Contract Dispute. American Financial Resources -- https://www.afrcorp.com/ -- offers a diverse group of mortgage loan and financing options for correspondents, brokers, and credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Teresa Carey Chow, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KERCHAI LeFLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE d/b/a ASCENSION and ASCENSION HEALTH d/b/a ASCENSION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00496v (E.D. Mo., May 4, 2022) alleges that Ascension failed to pay wages, including proper overtime for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. LeFlor brings this lawsuit to recover these unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Ascension to her and Ascension's other non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Ascension's decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack. Like many other companies across the United States, Ascension Health Alliance and Ascension Health's (together, "Ascension") timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Ascension's organization. As a result, Ascension's workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on time, if at all, for all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack, says the suit. Ascension could have easily implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Ascension pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce. Ascension made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on front-line workers -- average Americans -- who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages to make ends meet. After significant delay, Ascension made payment of some of these outstanding wages. However, portions of these earned wages remain unpaid. LeFlor has worked for Ascension since before December 2021. LeFlor represents at least two groups of similarly situated Ascension workers. LeFlor represents a collective of similarly situated workers under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). This "FLSA Collective" is defined as: "All current or former non-exempt employees of Ascension (including its subsidiaries and alter egos), who worked in the United States at any time since the onset of the Kronos ransomware attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the present." LeFlor represents a class of similarly situated workers under Michigan law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This "Michigan Class" is defined as: "All current or former non-exempt employees of Ascension (including its subsidiaries and alter egos) who worked in Michigan at any time since the onset of the Kronos ransomware attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the present." Ascension operates medical facilities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone (713) 999 5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Y.H, by and through her Guardian NATHAN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 30-2022-01257732-CU-BT-CXC-ROA (Cal., Super., Orange Cty., May 3, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful, deceptive, and misleading trade practices in its popular video games. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practices of allowing players, including, minors, to pay real-world currency to gamble on winning in-game items, as well as refusing to provide refunds to minors who made in-game purchases, deceive, mislead, and harm consumers, especially minor children who comprise a large segment of the Defendant's player population. The Plaintiff and other consumers have been injured as a result of the Defendant's practices, including, but not limited to, having suffered out-of-pocket loss. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. develops and publish online video game software. The Company offers novels, comics, manga, board, pen-and-paper role-playing, and basic card games. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Underpays Insurance Benefits, Pregozen Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEIL PREGOZEN, Executor of the Estate of David Pregozen, Deceased v. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00197-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., May 4, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendant routinely underpays long-term care insurance benefits owed due to a known "glitch" in Defendant's claims management software. The Defendant's long-term care policies provide different benefit types subject to different benefit caps. Two such benefits are Benefits for Nonconfined Care, which are subject to a daily maximum benefit amount, and Benefits for Care Coordination, which are subject to an annual maximum benefit amount. However, due to a "glitch" in Defendant's claim processing software, when Coordinated Care invoices are entered into Defendant's claims processing system before Nonconfined Care invoices are entered for a given day, the system inappropriately applies the Coordinated Care invoices towards the Nonconfined Care benefit's Daily Benefit Amount. When that happens, the policyholder's Daily Benefit Amount is reached prematurely and claims for subsequently entered invoices for Nonconfined Care are wrongfully denied, the suit alleges. As a result of the "glitch," Defendant has underpaid thousands of dollars of benefits due under Plaintiff's father's policy alone. The Defendant has known of the "glitch" since at least December 2020, when one of Defendant's claims specialists identified it as the cause of certain underpayments of benefits owed under Plaintiff's father's long-term care policy. Yet Defendant has failed to fix the glitch, fully pay Plaintiff all monies owed due to the glitch, and Defendant willfully and knowingly continues to underpay long term care benefits owed, the suit added.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norris A. Adams, II, Esq. ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A. 1701 South Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 377-4300 Facsimile: (704) 372-1357 E-mail: nadams@essexrichards.com - and - Sean K. Collins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (855) 693-9256 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45249 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com BYRD COOKIE: Reply to Ortega Class Action Complaint Due on May 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUAN ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYRD COOKIE COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 22 Civ. 1811 (PAE) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave the Defendant until May 16, 2022, to timely respond to the class action complaint. On March 25, 2022, Defendant Byrd, through Stephine Lindley, was served copies of the Summons in a Civil Action, Civil Cover Sheet, and Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and New York City And New York City Human Rights Law. On being served a summons, the Defendant had 21 days to file an answer. Accordingly, it had until April 15, 2022 to timely respond to the complaint. To date, the Defendant has failed to respond to the complaint. The Defendant will have until May 16, 2022 to timely respond. Its failure to timely respond to the Complaint may result in the entry of a Certificate of Default. A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cnacuet from Leagle.com. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a SPECTRUM, Case No. 3:22-cv-00584 (D. Conn., April 25, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Charter's workers who non-overtime-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for all hours worked after the onset of the Kronos attack. According to the complaint, Charter's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, like many other companies across the United States. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Charter's organization. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant to her and other non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Charter's decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack. Ms. Hernandez has worked for Charter since February 2021. Charter Communications, Inc., d/b/a Spectrum, is an American telecommunications and mass media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law COLONIAL STAFFING: Brooke Dean Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ BROOKE DEAN, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. COLONIAL STAFFING GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10663 (D. Mass., May 3, 2022) alleges Colonial Staffing failed to pay Brooke Dean (Dean) and other workers like her, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allegedly, Colonial paid Dean and other workers like her, the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek ("straight time for overtime"). Dean brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the FLSA. During the relevant period, Dean was an hourly employee of Colonial. Throughout his employment with Colonial, Dean was paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked (including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek) with no overtime compensation. Dean brings this Action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated workers who were paid by Colonial's "straight time for overtime" compensation scheme. Colonial staffs workers to the energy industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP 585 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536-1800 Facsimile: (617) 536-1802 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH , PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA: German Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHABRINA GERMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/ FLORIDA/OREGON INC. D/B/A XFINITY, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-005884 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The Defendant allegedly sent electronic communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the time zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by and through the electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, asserts the complaint. The consumer debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the consumer debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the consumer debt. COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/OREGON INC. d/b/a XFINITY was founded in 1996. The company's line of business includes providing two-way radiotelephone communication services such as cellular telephone services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com D'ARTAGNAN INC: Harris Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NJWHL, WPL ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO HARRIS, individually, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. D'ARTAGNAN, INC., ARIANE DAGUIN, in her individual and professional capacities, and ANDY WERTHEIM, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:22-cv-02620 (D.N.J., May 4, 2022) seeks recovery against the Defendants for their violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the retaliation provisions of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act and the common law right to be free from retaliation for exercising rights protected by a clear mandate of public policy. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants to recover damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, sustained by him as a result of Defendants' unlawful practice of failing to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff, and for retaliatory actions taken against Plaintiff after he made complaints to Defendants about his right to recover unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff also brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a collective action, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt delivery persons/truck drivers, for damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). During the relevant time period, Defendants allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and putative class members to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation as required by applicable Federal and New Jersey state law. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery person/truck driver for the Defendants, delivering the food ordered by D'Artagnan's customers, starting on or about August 1, 2019. The Plaintiff was paid $21.85 per hour for all hours worked in a work week. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 14 hours per day, sometimes working from 2 am to as late as 4 pm. By the time Plaintiff would get home, he would only be able to get a few hours sleep before he had to get up to go to work again, the lawsuit says. During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff contends that he made numerous complaints to the Defendants about his unpaid overtime, to no avail. On July 11, 2021, he was terminated from his employment for complaining about not being paid overtime, the Plaintiff adds. D'Artagnan is a food seller and manufacturer of beef, pork, lamb, veal, pâtés, sausages, smoked and cured charcuterie, all-natural and organic poultry, game, free-range meat, foie gras, wild mushrooms and truffles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cindy D. Salvo, Esq. THE SALVO LAW FIRM, PC CINDY D. SALVO 185 Fairfield Avenue, Suite 3C/3D West Caldwell, NJ 07006 Telephone: (973) 226-2220 Facsimile: (973) 900-8800 E-mail: csalvo@salvolawfirm.com DA AFGHANISTAN BANK: S.D. New York Dismisses Wodensheck Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, IN RE: APPROXIMATELY $3.5 BILLION OF ASSETS ON DEPOSIT AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK IN THE NAME OF DA AFGHANISTAN BANK, Case No. 22 CIV 03228 (GBD) (SN) (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Daniels' Order relates to In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, No. 03-md-1570 (GBD) (SN). Plaintiffs The Estate of Christopher Wodenshek, Anne Wodenshek, Sarah Wodenshek, Haley Wodenshek, Mollie Wodenshek, William Wodenshek, and Zachary Wodenshek (the "Wodensheck Plaintiffs") in the MDL captioned action, Ashton, et al. v. Al Qaeda Islamic, et al., Case No. 02-cv-6977, attempt to bring the separate proposed class action "seeking the equitable distribution" of funds currently deposited "at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB")." The Wodensheck Plaintiffs seek a class certification of "all persons and/or estates with compensatory damages claim against the Taliban on file in a U.S. court of record as of April 20, 2022." The complaint also sought an injunction "enjoining any judgment enforcement proceeding in any court affecting the DAB Assets pending adjudication of the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint." Judge Daniels finds the Complaint improper and dismissed it. He says, the purported class action complaint was clearly duplicative no matter how the Plaintiffs dress up the claims. The Wodensheck Plaintiffs acknowledge that they are part of the MDL. They are in fact members of the MDL member case Ashton, Case No. 02-cv-6977, in which they have obtained liability judgments and have pending proposed final default judgments. Their separate class action complaint is wholly about the "equitable distribution" of the DAB assets, including their damages in the Ashton case. The DAB assets are at issue in current turnover proceedings in the MDL. The turnover proceedings are consistent with President Biden's executive order and accompanying statement retaining 3.5 billion dollars of DAB Assets in the United States subject to ongoing litigation by U.S, victims of terror. Nothing about the proposed class action suit brings new claims that cannot be heard in the related MDL. Since a Plaintiff cannot maintain duplicate actions, the class action complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5bk45xbp from Leagle.com. DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Moure Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN MOURE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIALAMERICA MARKETING, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00625-OAW (May 3, 2022) arises out of the recent data breach involving DialAmerica, a for-profit call center outsourcing services company headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey. DialAmerica allegedly failed to reasonably secure, monitor, and maintain Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") provided by current and former employees, including, without limitation, full names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and employee assigned identification numbers of individuals stored on its private network. Indeed, after learning of the Data Breach, the Defendant waited nearly nine months to notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach and/or inform them that their PII was compromised. During this time, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their sensitive 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, says the suit. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant's conduct in breaching these duties amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members and warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by knowingly failing to implement and maintain 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. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's data security failures and the Data Breach, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, and Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual, present, concrete injuries. The Plaintiff received a "Notice of Security" letter, dated April 6, 2021, on or about that date. The letter notified Plaintiff that on July 4, 2021, DialAmerica identified unusual activity on its network. Additionally, the letter stated that DialAmerica commenced an investigation that determined between February 2, 2021 and July 9, 2021, an unauthorized actor gained access to certain DialAmerica systems and the actor may have viewed and taken data from those systems. DialAmerica is a telemarketing and call center outsourcing service provider headquartered at 960 MacArthur Boulevard, Mahwah, New Jersey.[BN] DVL EXPRESS: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Tsybikov Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AYUR TSYBIKOV and IRINA DUDCHENKO, Plaintiffs v. OLEKSANDR DOVGAL, ALINA KIM, DVL EXPRESS, INC., and ALTEX LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19 C 3334 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. I. Introduction The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by two delivery drivers against Defendants DVL and Altex. The basis of their claim is that DVL and Altex misclassified them as independent contractors when they were actually employees entitled to the protection of the Illinois Wage Payment and Compensation Act (the "IWPCA"). As a result of this misclassification, they suffered unlawful deductions from their pay and were required to pay business expenses that were properly those of the Defendants. They now move for class certification pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 under Count I of their Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: All delivery drivers who performed deliveries for DVL Express, Inc., and/or Altex Logistics, Inc., between 2011 and the present and were classified as independent contractors. II. Background DVL and Altex are owned by Defendants Oleksandr Dovgal and Alina Kim respectively. The Plaintiffs, Auyur Tsybikov and Irina Dudchenko, were employed by the Defendants as delivery drivers. Tsybikov worked for Defendants between August 2014 and August 2017. Dudchenko worked for Defendants in February and March 2020. The two companies are closely intertwined; Kim had regular involvement in the operation of DVL, and Altex regularly hauls loads for DVL and vice versa. Kim routinely gave delivery assignments and communicated safety regulations and new policy instructions to delivery drivers, including the Plaintiffs. The two companies share dispatchers, recruiters, and safety managers. They use identical forms for dealing with their delivery drivers. DVL and Altex haul freight for various customers such as Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, Robinson, Glen Star and Coyote. The Plaintiffs and the other delivery drivers were required to pass background checks and drug tests in order to work for the Defendants. Prior to starting work for the Defendants, they were required to attend orientation sessions during which they were instructed about logbook requirements, safety regulations, and truck loading procedures. Drivers who violated safety instructions were penalized financially. Drivers were required to drive a minimum of 3,000 miles per week and were required to work full time and up to 70 hours per week. The trucks they drove had the Defendants' logos on them. They were not allowed to work for any other trucking company. The Plaintiffs and other drivers received their delivery assignments from the Defendants' dispatchers and were required to check in when picking up and dropping off freight loads, as well as periodically while on the road. They were required to submit weekly reports showing the deliveries they made. The Defendants generated weekly statements listing payments made to the drivers and deductions that were taken from the driver's pay. Deductions included payments for accidents, safety violations, and escrow payments. In addition, drivers were required to pay for drug tests, cell phone plans, and GPS systems. On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Sept. 9,2021. On Sept. 24, 2021, the Defendants responded in opposition to the motion. They contend that the Plaintiffs and the other delivery drivers were independent contractors because they each had either written or oral contracts with them which stated that they were independent contractors. The Defendants also contend that these contracts authorized them to deduct these expenses and amercements from the drivers' pay. Since the deductions from pay is the Plaintiffs' main complaint, the Defendants argue the claims of the proposed class claims will turn on individual issues. Also, the Defendants contend that many of the drivers do not have IWCPA standing because they perform most of their driving duties outside of the state of Illinois. The Plaintiffs replied on Oct. 15, 2021, arguing (1) the existence of individual damage claims does not prevent a class action on the issue of liability, (2) that IWPCA applies to all the class members, and (3) that differences between the various contracts does not prevent class consideration of a charge of misclassification. The Court now decides the motion. III. Discussion Judge Leinenweber addresses each of the Defendants arguments in turn. He opines that the initial problem with the Defendants' main argument, i.e., that the drivers had individual oral or written contracts, is that it assumes that the Defendants did not misclass the Plaintiffs. This is not an issue at class certification; it is the main issue of law in the case. If the Plaintiffs (and class members) have an independent contractor status with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs will probably lose. However, the issue is an open one prior to trial or summary judgment. As the Seventh Circuit held in Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d 679, 685 (7th Cir.2010), certification is largely independent of the merits. Whether the Plaintiffs are employees or independent contractors is one of Illinois law, specifically the IWPCA which has established a three-prong test to answer the question. The test is in the conjunctive so that to establish that a driver is an independent contractor rather than an employee, the employer must show the following three conditions are met: The worker is an individual: (1) who has been and will continue to be free from control and direction over the performance of his work, both under his contract and in fact; and(2) who performs work which is either outside the usual course of business or is performed outside all of the places of business of the employer; and(3) who is in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. According to the Plaintiffs' evidence, the Defendants fail on all three of the prongs. The evidence submitted shows that the Defendants controlled and directed the performance of their drivers' work, the drivers did at least some of their work at their place of business (picking up loads), and the Defendants' business was trucking which is the trade in which the Plaintiffs were engaged. Judge Leinenweber next reviews the Plaintiffs' standing to obtain the applicability of the IWPCA, which the Defendants deny, and their argument being that the vast majority are not Illinois residents and that the drivers did the majority of their driving outside Illinois. The current Illinois Department of Labor regulation and the Illinois Court's interpretation of the statute and regulation have held that "both the plain language of the statute and the recently amended administrative regulations of the Illinois Department of Labor place no limitation on the amount of work that an Illinois employee must perform within the state so as avail himself of the Wage Act's protections," citing Watts v. ADDO Mgmt., L.L.C., 97 N.E.3d 75, 80 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018) (citing 38 Ill. Reg. 18517 (Aug. 22, 2014)). Watts forecloses the Defendants' standing argument, Judge Leinenweber opines. Turning to the class issues, Judge Leinenweber explains that to obtain class certification, the proposed class must satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a), Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, and Adequacy, as well as one of the alternatives in Rule 23(b), in this case, Predominance. He says, the Numerosity prong is clearly met because the Defendants have stated that approximately 721 individuals provided deliveries during the relevant time period. Each Plaintiff also is a driver working for the Defendants and is subject to the same contention that he is an independent contractor and not subject to the protection of the IWCPA. Thus, typicality is satisfied. As to Commonality, Judge Leinenweber says the common issue in the case is whether the Plaintiffs are employees or independent contractors under the IWPCA. Having done so, they have established commonality. The final Rule 23(a) requirement is adequacy. This includes both adequacy of the Plaintiffs as representatives of the absent class members and their attorneys as competent representatives. The Defendants do not question adequacy, so Judge Leinenweber will not question it either. The final prong for establishment of a class is the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b). Predominance is similar to commonality, but more stringent. The question is whether the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. The Defendants argue that each potential class member will involve different expenses of which at least some will have been authorized. Thus, the case will require each class member to be subjected to a separate trial on this issue. This is not a major problem, however, because the IWPCA requires a written agreement for expenses, says Judge Leinenweber. He holds that those which have been agreed to in writing will not be compensated. However according to the Plaintiffs, many of the expenses were disclosed to them by e-mail while on the road and thus were not in writing and evidence of them no longer exists. In either case, this objection will not pose a major problem. He therefore finds predominance to exist. IV. Conclusion Judge Leinenweber concludes that the whole thrust of the Defendants' argument against class certification is that each Plaintiff and each class member started work under a separate contract, some written and some oral. Therefore, there are a multitude of different contracts, some of which are oral. Thus, each claimant is different so that there can be no commonality, typicality, or predominance. The fallacy is that this fact is largely irrelevant because the issue in the class action is whether under the Defendants' trucking business management and operating procedures, a driver could opt out of IWPCA coverage by entering into a contract with Defendants. That is the issue, and it is common to the class. Judge Leinenweber finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are met and he declares a class consisting of: All delivery drivers who performed deliveries for DVL Express, Inc., and/or Altex Logistics, Inc., between 2011 and the present and were classified as independent contractors. A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7496tuf from Leagle.com. FCA US: Faces Beeney Suit Over Unlawful Phantom Freight Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- PERRY BEENEY, WENDY BEENEY, NATHAN BENEFIELD, TREVOR COLE, ROBERT COLLINGWOOD, GARY DUTKOWSKI, BILLY E. ROWLES JR., and DARELL UPSHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US, LLC, and STELLANTIS N.V., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-UNA (D. Del., April 22, 2022) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves other purchasers of new, model-year 2018 and later Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Fiat and Maserati-brand vehicles distributed for sale in the United States by FCA, asserting claims at common law and for violations of various state consumer protection statutes. The U.S. Congress highlighted practices in the automotive industry that were harming consumers back in the 1950s. It identified, in particular, the problem of "phantom freight" -- a cost that had been charged by companies like Chrysler (now FCA) and Ford in connection with the sale of new vehicles. Phantom freight referred to artificially inflating the purported cost of transporting vehicles to dealerships for sale to consumers. Auto manufacturers used that inflated cost to unfairly derive additional revenues that they could not have generated by simply raising the vehicles' sales price. Pursuant to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, which took effect in January 1959, companies like FCA are required to place a label -- often referred to as a "Monroney Sticker" -- on the window of each new vehicle before making it available for sale. The Monroney Sticker lists, among other things, a destination charge, which one Congressman described as the "plain honest-to-goodness figure" that reflects the cost of delivering the vehicle to a dealership for sale. In the midst of congressional scrutiny into phantom freight, Ford and Chrysler publicly announced they were giving up the practice. The Plaintiffs and proposed class members bought new Class Vehicles and allegedly incurred the phantom freight costs that FCA now systematically charges. Neither Defendants, nor any of their dealers or other representatives informed Plaintiffs, during or after purchase, of the fact that the destination charges contained phantom freight, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result, and as a producing cause, of FCA's business practices, Plaintiff and Class members suffered economic damages, because they purchased more Class Vehicles than they otherwise would have and paid prices they would not otherwise have paid, the suit added. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories. FCA US serve clients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq. THE BIFFERATO FIRM 1007 N Orange Street, 4th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 429-0907 E-mail: cbifferato@tbf.legal - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 4730 Table Mesa Drive Suite G-200 Boulder, CO 80305 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 E-mail: wanderson@hajustice.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. David Stein, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com kjg@classlawgroup.com - and - Rebecca P. Chang, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 33 Irving Street New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (347) 480-1030 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 E-mail: rchang@hfajustice.com - and - Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1704 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com FCA US: Faces Lindsey Suit Over Inflation of Destination Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER LINDSEY and BCR CARPENTRY LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FCA US, LLC, and STELLANTIS N.V., Case No. 2:22-cv-02637 (D.N.J., May 4, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other purchasers of new, model-year 2018 and later Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Fiat, and Maserati-brand vehicles distributed for sale in the United States by FCA (Class Vehicles). According to the complaint, FCA received money that was intended to be used for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class. In particular, FCA charges destination charges for Class Vehicles and thereby derives money intended to benefit Plaintiffs and Class members by paying for the cost of delivering Class Vehicles to dealerships for sale. FCA failed to use the money for the benefit of Plaintiffs and Class members. As alleged, rather than charging destination charges to pay for the true cost of delivery, FCA has inflated the destination charges in order to generate additional profit for itself, which it has not spent for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class. Back in the 1950s, Congress highlighted practices in the automotive industry that were harming consumers. Congress identified, in particular, the problem of "phantom freight" – a cost that had been charged by companies like Chrysler (now FCA) and Ford in connection with the sale of new vehicles. Phantom freight referred to artificially inflating the purported cost of transporting vehicles to dealerships for sale to consumers. Auto manufacturers used that inflated cost to unfairly derive additional revenues that they could not have generated by simply raising the vehicles' sales price. The Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 Ram 1500 Classic Tradesman on or about March 29, 2021, from Dodge Chrysler Jeep City, an authorized Dodge dealer and repair center located in Burlington, New Jersey. The Plaintiff paid a total purchase price of $42,625. When Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, Plaintiff viewed the Monroney Label affixed to the window. The Plaintiff referenced the document, for the feature and pricing information it contained. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200 Boulder, CO 80305 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 E-mail: wanderson@hajustice.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. David Stein, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com kjg@classlawgroup.com - and - Rebecca P. Chang, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 33 Irving Street New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (347) 480-1030 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 E-mail: rchang@hfajustice.com - and - Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704 Miami, Fl. 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com FILIPPO VICARI: Ordonez Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL ORDONEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FILIPPO VICARI CONSTRUCTION INC., FILIPPO DANIEL VICARI, ENRICO VICARI and ALEXANDRO VICARI, as individuals, Case No. 1:22-cv-02543 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants' business located at 6525 79th St., Middle Village, New York, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor laws delineated below, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate, says the suit. Although Plaintiffs regularly worked 60-72 hours per week during the relevant statutory period, the Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiffs at a wage rate of time and a half for their hours regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Mallozzi Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL V. MALLOZZI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC., PAUL SMITHERS, CATHERINE HASTINGS, and ANDY BUI, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02359 (D.N.J., April 25, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Innovative Industrial Properties securities between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Company's registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Innovative Industrial Properties’ focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a REIT; (2) that the true values of Innovative Industrial Properties' properties are significantly lower than Innovative Industrial Properties represents; (3) existential issues in its top customers; (4) that as a result, its top customers may not be able to continue making payments to Innovative Industrial Properties and Innovative Industrial Properties would face significant issues replacing these customers; and (5) that as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On this news, the Company's share price fell $13.76 per share, or 7.5%, to close at $169.68 per share on April 14, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is an American real estate investment trust company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com JANET LLC: Christa Hinds Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, MFWSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christa Hinds Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Janet, LLC and Nicholas Keyes, Jr., Case No. 3:22-cv-00115-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, May 4, 2022) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum wages and overtime wages. The Defendants own and/or operate Flanagan's Pub located in Dayton, Ohio. The Defendants employed a common policy and practice whereby Plaintiff and the members of the Classes were required to regularly work for the benefit of the Defendants while their hours were not being properly paid, classified, or recorded. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the members of the Classes are entitled to the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime for hours over 40 in an individual work week. The Defendants have a policy or practice of paying their tipped employees at Flanagan's Pub sub-minimum hourly wages under the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA ("Tip-Credit Employees"). The Defendants paid Plaintiff at a subminimum tip-credit wage to work as a server at Defendants' Flanagan's Pub. The Plaintiff Hinds worked as a server at Defendants' Flanagan's Pub in Dayton, Ohio in February, 2021. The Plaintiff does not recall Defendants informing her of the tip-credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. While paying her at the sub-minimum, tip-credit wage, Defendants required Plaintiff to spend over 20 percent of her work time in one or more individual workweeks performing required duties where she did not interact with customers and could not earn a tip, including but not limited to opening and closing, sweeping, sanitizing, cleaning bathrooms, washing windows, and taking out trash, the Plaintiff contends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza -- Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 E-mail: james@bswages.com JEFF'S HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Power Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JACK POWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFF'S HOME IMPROVEMENTS, LLC, d/b/a JEFF'S HOME SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00715-CAB (N.D., Ohio, May 3, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Powers was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver. JEFF'S HOME IMPROVEMENTS, LLC, d/b/a JEFF'S HOME SERVICES full service home improvement contractor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza Building - Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 Facsimile: (216) 642-5814 Email: james@bswages.com - and - Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Email: cliff@bswages.com JUUL LABS: Woodland Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ WOODLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT #404, 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-02685-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 4, 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. Woodland Public Schools District #404 is a unified school district with its offices located at 800 3rd Street in Woodland, 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 LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Tyrone Dorn Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & AMWA ------------------------------------------------------------------- TYRONE DORN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LENNOX INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00073-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 3, 2022) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay proper overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA. The Plaintiff brings this claim for relief for violation of the FLSA as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of all persons similarly situated as hourly employees who were, are, or will be employed by Defendant within the applicable statute of limitations period. Lennox is a provider of climate control products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration markets. Lennox also includes the Heatcraft Refrigeration and Armstrong brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Wilson, 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: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MDL 1570: Bid to Appear Pro Hac Vice in 9/11 Attacks Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, Case No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD) (SN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion to appear pro hac vice. Judge Daniels' Order relates to In re Approximately $3.5 Billion of Assets on Deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the Name of Da Afghanistan Bank, No. 22-cv-03228 (GBD) (SN). Given the dismissal of the class action complaint in In re Approximately $3.5 Billion of Assets, Case No. 22-cv-03228, the motion to appear pro hac vice is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4cs4nxhd from Leagle.com. META PLATFORMS: Cook Sues Over Copyright Infringement ----------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor and SNAKEARTS.COM, and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., f/k/a FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2022) arises from the Defendant's conduct of publishing and displaying millions of copyright infringing images every single day in violation of the Copyright Act of the United States, Visual Artists' Rights Act, Lanham Act, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The complaint is brought by the Plaintiff stemming from Facebook's use of stolen images for ad revenue and direct infringement of Plaintiff's and the Class' exclusive right to display and distribute Registered Works and Facebook's participation, and contributions to the advertising and sale of creative works and products that constitute inferior knockoff duplications of copyrighted and protected products. Allegedly, Facebook directly participates in Counterfeit ad approval and publication through the Facebook Ad Platform approval process, which includes scanning ads for things like discrimination and design issues. Plaintiff JL Cook is and at all relevant times was a resident of the State of Florida. She is an artist and engages in the development and sale of artistic and unique representations of reptiles. JL Cook does business as "JL Cook," "JL Cook Sculptor," and "SNAKEARTS." She registered two of her works, the "Python" and the "Matched Pair Rattlesnake Entrance Sculptures" (collectively "Plaintiff's Registered Works") with the U.S. Copyright Office. The U.S. Copyright Office issued certificates for Plaintiff's Registered Works that establish Jennifer Cook as the prima facie copyright owner. Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta and formerly known as Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arielle M. Canepa, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: arielle.canepa@zimmreed.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 - and - Jonathan L. Hardt, Esq. James F. McDonough, Esq. ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC 712 W. 14th Street Suite C Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (210) 289-7541 NETFLIX INC: Faces Pirani Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- FIYYAZ PIRANI, as TRUSTEE OF IMPERIUM IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NETFLIX, INC., REED HASTINGS, TED SARANDOS, and SPENCER NEUMANN, Case No. 3:22-cv-02672 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Netflix common stock or call options, or sold put options, between October 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 20, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that it "slightly over-forecasted paid net adds in Q4," adding 8.3 million subscribers compared to the 8.5 million forecast. The Company also stated that, despite "healthy" retention and engagement, it only expected to add 2.5 million net subscribers during first quarter 2022, below the 4.0 million net adds in the prior year period. On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $110.75, or 21.7%, to close at $397.50 per share on January 21, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, says the suit. On April 19, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that it lost 200,000 subscribers during the first quarter of 2022, compared to prior guidance expecting the Company to add 2.5 million net subscribers. The Company cited the slowing revenue growth to four factors, including account sharing with an estimated 100 million additional households and competition with other streaming services. On this news, the Company’s share price fell $122.42, or over 35%, to close at $226.19 per share on April 20, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Netflix was exhibiting slower acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by customers and increased competition from other streaming services. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered 17 significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased Netflix securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Netflix primarily operates an entertainment platform that offers TV series, documentaries, feature films, and mobile games across a variety of genres and languages. It also offers a DVD-by-mail service in the U.S. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 NOBLE ENERGY: Colorado Court Tosses Boulter Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MIKE BOULTER, BOULTER, LLC, RALPH NIX PRODUCE, INC., and BARCLAY FARMS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., and KERR-McGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE, LP, Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-03500-RM-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge Raymond P. Moore of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss. Before the Court is the Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs concede that that their previously dismissed complaint in Case No. 21-cv-01346-RM-KLM ("Boulter II") contained allegations substantially identical to the claims alleged in their current Class Action Complaint. The claims and allegations in Boulter II were in turn substantially identical to those asserted in Case No. 21-cv-00861-WJM-KLM ("Boulter I"). In Boulter I, U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged untimely royalty payments because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC"). As a matter of law, the COGCC must determine in the first instance whether a claimant seeking such royalty payments has shown a bona fide dispute of contract interpretation that takes the matter out of the COGCC's exclusive jurisdiction. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' arguments, Judge Moore holds that the 1998 amendments to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act did not end the COGCC's exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. "The 1998 amendments do not evidence a change in the legislature's intent regarding the primacy of the COGCC's jurisdiction over disputes like this one." "To allow parallel judicial proceedings on these same issues, rather than giving the COGCC the first opportunity to decide them, would go against the legislative intent revealed by the Act's declaration, language, and administrative processes." In Boulter II, the Court declined to allow the Plaintiffs a second bite at matters already determined by Judge Martinez. Now, Judge Moore declines to allow the Plaintiffs a third bite because their arguments are not new, and nothing of significance has changed. In their Response, the Plaintiffs assert that they are now in the process of exhausting their administrative remedies. But that does not render the exhaustion requirement satisfied. Nor does their contention that exhaustion will be futile. Once again, the Plaintiffs have chosen to refile their case in the Court. Once again, their efforts have found futility. For the reasons he stated, Judge Moore granted the Defendants' Joint Motion, dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdwhph5h from Leagle.com. NOMI HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Poole Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY E. POOLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOMI HEALTH, INC.; and MEDX STAFFING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-21383 (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Poole was employed by the Defendant as staff. NOMI HEALTH, INC. is a foreign for-profit corporation that is authorized to conduct its business in Florida and is sui juris. NoMi Health has conducted its healthcare testing and treatment business in numerous locations, including in this District, at all times material. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 135 San Lorenzo Avenue Suite 770 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com ONE MEDICAL: Etri Sues Over Deceptive Annual Membership Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT ETRI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE MEDICAL GROUP, INC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02504-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 25, 2022) is brought as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated One Medical customers who have been deceived into paying annual membership fees (AMFs) in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, One Medical represents to customers that they must pay these AMFs in order to obtain any medical care or services from One Medical when, in fact, payment of the AMFs is entirely optional. Had Plaintiff and the Class members known the AMFs were not required in order to receive medical services through One Medical, they would not have paid them, says the suit. Plaintiff Robert Etri is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. He was a One Medical member from 2017 to the present. Believing it to be mandatory to receive care at a One Medical facility, Plaintiff paid the $199 AMF in at least May 2020. One Medical is a membership-based "concierge" medical practice with at least 60 offices nationwide. Founded in 2007, One Medical added 80,000 new patients in 2015 and is currently valued at over $1 billion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com OPORTUN INC: Faces Falcon Suit Over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- INDIRA FALCON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPORTUN INC., Defendant, Case Filing No. 148214358 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The Defendant allegedly sent electronic communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the time zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by and through the electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, asserts the complaint. The consumer debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the consumer debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the consumer debt. OPORTUN INC. is a financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com PASA PARCEL: Davis Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PASA PARCEL, LLC and PATRICK BOONE, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00087 (S.D. Tex., April 22, 2022) is a collective action seeking to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages and all other applicable penalties brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and Class members their wages on time and as required by the federal law and illegally retaliated against Davis by terminating his employment after he asserted his rights under the FLSA. Davis worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver in Corpus Christi, Texas from December 2021 until February 2022. The Defendants operate as a delivery service that is contracted with Amazon to deliver products ordered from Amazon to the end purchaser.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com PJ FAST: Courtney Seeks Minimum Wages for Drivers Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ LACHELLE COURTNEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. PJ FAST, LLC, PJ FAST ANNA, LLC, PJ FAST GREENVILLE, LLC, PJ FAST LAKEWAY, LLC, PJ FAST PARIS, LLC, PJ FAST VICTORIA, LLC, and PJ FAST LAWTON, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01432 (S.D. Tex., May 4, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at their Papa John's stores under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate numerous Papa John's franchise stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that neither reimburses the drivers for their actual expenses, nor at the IRS business mileage rate which is legally required and a reasonable approximation of those expenses, says the suit. This under-reimbursement caused their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately October 2019 to March 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Papa John’s store located in Lawton, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@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 - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com JPavlos@forthepeople.com RAGUBOY CORP: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- LORENZO ALVAREZ GONZALEZ, JAVIER DIAZ PLAZA, and ERICK ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RAGUBOY CORP. d/b/a SUPPER RESTAURANT and FRANK PRISINZANO and ANIS OUESLATI, as individuals, Case No. 1:22-cv-03607 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants located at 156 E 2nd St., New York. As a result of the alleged violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. Although Plaintiff regularly worked 50 hours or more hours week during their employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, the suit added.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 REDBUBBLE INC: Faces Wallster Suit Over Copyright Infringement -------------------------------------------------------------- WALLSTER, INC., dba WALLSHOPPE; and NATHAN TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REDBUBBLE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02958 (C.D. Cal., May 3, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for copyright infringement and unfair business practices. According to the complaint, Redbubble has profited from its unauthorized use of the Plaintiffs' copyrighted design through the sale of the infringing goods, diverting profits from the sale of authentic goods of the Plaintiffs, and causing harm to the Plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill. Also, Redbubble's procedures and policies are wholly inadequate for addressing the clear cases of infringement by its products. In fact, its policies and procedures practically allow Redbubble to avoid any responsibility for policing its own products until it is notified of infringement by the copyright holder. Instead of Redbubble policing its own online marketplace for infringing works, it places the onus on the copyright holders to track down and address the unlicensed counterfeit products. REDBUBBLE INC. operates as an online marketplace. The Company offers shirts, stickers, phone cases, pillows, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger N. Behle, Jr., Esq. Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq. Jordan A. Liebman, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (714) 556-1700 Facsimile: (714) 546-5005 Email: rbehle@foleybezek.com kgamarnik@foleybezek.com liebman@foleybezek.com SALSAS OF TITUSVILLE: Paz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ EMMA PAZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. SALSAS OF TITUSVILLE CORPORATION d/b/a SALSAS COCINA TITUSVILLE a/k/a Salsas Mexican Restaurant and JESUS VALENCIA, Case No. 6:22-cv-00834 (M.D. Fla., May 3, 2022) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that she was employed by Corporate Defendant as a server performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated server(s) whom she observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. In total, she worked approximately 73 compensable weeks under the FLSA, or 73 compensable weeks if we count 3 years preceding the date of the filing of the instant action. However, the Corporate Defendant did not properly compensate her for hours that she worked in excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiff adds.[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 E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com SHARED IMAGING: Court Can't Approve Class Settlement in Ranger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Monica Ranger, et al., Plaintiffs v. Shared Imaging, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00401-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional certification of class action and preliminary approval of settlement. On Nov. 11, 2021, the parties in the wage and hour class action alerted the court that they were "in the process of finalizing a joint stipulation for class action and PAGA settlement." Following the parties' agreement in principle to settle the action, the Court ordered all proceedings stayed for 120 days, until March 12, 2022. It also noted that if a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement was not filed by March 12, 2022, the parties were ordered to show cause why the stay should not be lifted. On Jan. 28, 2022, Defendant Shared Imaging filed a status report notifying the court that the parties "have been unable to file a joint stipulation of settlement, due to a fundamental disagreement over the number of workweeks applicable to the settlement class." According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs declined to file a joint status report or endorse the status report. It requested a status conference before the Court to address this last remaining issue before finalizing a joint stipulation of settlement. On March 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for provisional certification of class action and preliminary approval of settlement. The Defendant filed an opposition, arguing that the Plaintiffs "sought settlement approval prematurely, because no enforceable settlement agreement exists arising from the parties' executed Memorandum of Understanding [MOU]," which set forth the essential terms of the agreement in principle to settle the case. The Plaintiffs filed a reply on April 26, arguing the MOU is an enforceable contract and that the parties' disagreement over the number of aggregate workweeks described in the MOU did not preclude a "meeting of the minds". Judge Mueller agrees with the Defendant that settlement approval would be premature, as the parties have not satisfied the pre-filing meet and confer requirements nor agreed to a settlement. First, she says, the MOU included a paragraph stating that the "Plaintiffs will prepare and, after the Defendant has an opportunity to review, the Initial Approval Motion and Final Approval Motion, which will be filed subject to the Defendant's express approval." While grammatically flawed, this provision makes clear (1) the Defendant would have the opportunity to review the initial approval motion, and (2) the Plaintiffs would only file the motion with the Defendant's express approval. The Plaintiffs did not provide the Defendant with a draft of the motion, nor did it approve of their filing the motion. Their apparent request for the Court to interpret and enforce the MOU is not properly before the court and, regardless, their arguments demonstrate the Plaintiffs did not satisfy the Court's routine pre-filing meet and confer requirements set out in its standing orders. Second, the parties previously represented to the Court that they were "in the process of finalizing a joint stipulation for class action and PAGA settlement." Indeed, the Court's ability to approve a wage and hour class action settlement depends on the parties' agreeing to the terms set out in the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, not a predicate MOU. Accordingly, Judge Mueller cannot approve the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement because there is no settlement agreement before her. Because the parties have not filed a joint stipulation by the deadline set in the Court's previous order, the stay is lifted and the Court's June 25, 2020 scheduling order is in effect, adjusted to account for the date of the Order. Fact discovery will be completed by 5/20/2022; expert disclosures will be completed by 6/30/2022; rebuttal expert witnesses will be exchanged by 7/21/2022; all expert discovery will be completed by 8/18/2022; and all dispositive motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, will be heard by 10/10/2022. Judge Mueller's Order resolves ECF No. 32. A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4wxuwd83 from Leagle.com. SKYWEST AIRLINES: Stockbridge Sues Over Flight Crew's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL STOCKBRIDGE and XAVIER CASTRO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13789 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide employees with or retain complete and accurate wage statements and failed to pay wages, without abatement or reduction. Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, and in particular California Labor Code sections 2699, 2699.3 and 2699.5, Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private attorney general, seeks assessment and collection of unpaid wages and civil penalties for Plaintiffs, all other aggrieved employees, and the State of California against Defendants, in addition to other remedies, for violations of California Labor Code section 226. The Defendants employed Plaintiffs in one or more flight crew positions within the State of California until 2021. Skywest Airlines, Inc. provides retail air transportation both throughout the State of California and on a national basis and are purported to be one of the major airlines of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. THE BAINER LAW FIRM 1999 Harrison St., Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 922-1802 E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com UNITED SERVICES: Court Refuses to Stay Discovery in Advanced Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADVANCED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-01817-WJM-NYW (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. I. Background Plaintiff Advanced Exteriors, Inc. initiated the civil action on July 2, 2021, and filed a First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand on Oct. 19, 2021. The Plaintiff names four Defendants in the putative class action: United Services Automobile Association ("USAA"), USAA Casualty Insurance Co., USAA General Indemnity Co., and Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Co. The Plaintiff alleges generally that, in the roofing-repair context, USAA "refuses to pay the roofing labor rate for tear-off of roofing material," which Plaintiff asserts is the market rate, and that USAA instead pays only a "demolition rate." It asserts three claims on behalf of itself and a class of persons or entities who have performed roofing work for USAA: (1) unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. Sections 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) a claim seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case was originally assigned to the Honorable William J. Martinez and referred to the Honorable N. Reid Neureiter. Judge Neureiter held a Scheduling Conference in the matter on Nov. 9, 2021, at which time he set the discovery deadline for Sept. 19, 2022 and the dispositive motions deadline for Dec. 23, 2022. On Nov. 15, 2021, Judge Martinez ordered that the case be reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge due to a related case that had been assigned to Judge Martinez and referred to the undersigned: Advanced Exteriors, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. et al., 21-cv-01814-WJM-NYW. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in the case on Nov. 2, 2021, moving the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).The Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed, and remains pending before the presiding judge. The Defendants then filed the instant Motion to Stay on April 14, 2022. In the Motion, the Defendants "move for a 90-day stay of discovery in light of their pending motion to dismiss and the waste of resources that will occur if discovery proceeds and their motion to dismiss is later granted." The Court ordered the Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Stay by April 25, 2022, and ordered that no replies would be permitted absent leave of court. Thereafter, the Parties jointly contacted the court to set a Discovery Dispute Conference in the matter, which was set on the court's calendar for May 9, 2022. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Response, opposing a stay of discovery and "requesting that the Court strikes the Motion and enforce the informal discovery dispute procedure outlined" in Judge Wang's Practice Standards. Because the Motion is ripe for disposition, Judge Wang considers the Parties' arguments. II. Analysis A. Plaintiff's Request to Strike the Motion to Stay Judge Wang first addresses the Plaintiff's assertions that the Motion to Stay violates the undersigned's Practice Standards and its accompanying request that the court strike the Motion. She explains that as a preliminary matter, the Local Rules provide that "a motion will not be included in a response or reply to the original motion. A motion will be filed as a separate document." Accordingly, insofar as the Plaintiff requests relief from the Court in its Response, such a request is not properly before the Court. The Practice Standard which the Plaintiff references concerns instances in which parties have a dispute concerning the substance of discovery, and encourages parties to participate in a discovery dispute conference prior to filing "any discovery motion" -- e.g., a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions. The Court has not traditionally held discovery dispute conferences to discuss whether a stay of discovery is appropriate, and accordingly, Judge Wang does not consider a motion to stay all discovery to be a motion which requires the Parties to first contact the court to schedule a discovery dispute conference. While she certainly appreciates all Parties familiarizing themselves and complying with the undersigned's Practice Standards, Judge Wang declines to strike the Defendants' Motion on this basis. B. The Motion to Stay In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts consider the following five factors (the "String Cheese factors"): (1) plaintiff's interest in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendant; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest. The Defendants argue that a brief stay of discovery will not cause any prejudice to the Plaintiff," reasoning that a 90-day stay of discovery will not run the risk of any loss of evidence and will "balance the Plaintiff's interest in proceeding with the case." In response, the Plaintiff asserts that due to the upcoming discovery deadlines in the case, staying discovery "will delay the case significantly and require an entirely new Scheduling Order, with new discovery and motions cutoff dates." Judge Wang holds that even a brief 90-day stay may potentially delay the efficient resolution of the Plaintiff's claims, as it would likely require the re-setting of the case deadlines and subsequent delay of trial, should the Motion to Dismiss be denied. Indeed, "dispositive motions are denied more often than they result in the termination of a case. Consequently, it is more likely than not from a statistical point of view that a delay pending a ruling would prove unnecessary." Moreover, she notes that while the Defendants seek only a 90-day stay of discovery, there is no guarantee that the Motion to Dismiss will be ruled on in the next 90 days, given the significant caseload of the judges within the District. With respect to the second String Cheese factor, the Defendants maintain that "allowing discovery to proceed would impose a large burden" on Defendants, as Plaintiff seeks "extensive discovery" with respect to 263 claim files. In response, the Plaintiff challenges Defendants' general assertions as to the burdensome nature of anticipated discovery. Judge Wang, insofar as the Parties have pending disputes over the scope of discovery, declines to wade into such disputes at this time, given the upcoming Discovery Dispute Conference. She is confident that the counsel will meaningfully work to narrow the Parties' discovery requests to cover only what is truly necessary to proceed efficiently with the litigation. She also notes that the Defendants are always burdened when they are sued, and the ordinary burdens associated with litigating a case do not constitute undue burdens. Turning to the third String Cheese factor, the Defendants contend that a brief stay of discovery would serve the Court's interests because "given the extent of discovery the Plaintiff demands, there may be a need for judicial intervention to manage the permissible scope of discovery," and if the Motion to Dismiss is eventually granted, the Court would have expended resources that ultimately prove unnecessary. Judge Wang respectfully disagrees. She says, the potential for discovery disputes between the Parties does not overpower the Court's "strong interest in ensuring the speedy resolution of the cases before it." While a Discovery Dispute Conference has already been scheduled in the matter, Judge Wang is not persuaded that the potential for discovery disputes between the Parties warrants a stay of discovery. More broadly, she cannot invite the practice of parties filing motions to stay discovery solely based on the possibility that discovery could be narrowed or obviated by a pending dispositive motion. In arguing that the public interest weighs in favor of a stay of discovery, the Defendants assert the same arguments as those raised with respect to the third String Cheese factor: That a stay of discovery would obviate the need for the court to hear discovery disputes and would conserve judicial resources.But while the public may have an interest in the conservation of finite judicial resources, the public also has a "strong interest regarding the prompt and efficient handling of all litigation." Considerations of fairness and timeliness will not be advanced by the imposition of a stay. Judge Wang is not persuaded that the public interest favors a stay of discovery and concludes that this factor is neutral. Finally, the Defendants argue that a stay of discovery serves the interests of non-parties because non-party policyholders "may object to disclosure of their claim-file information to Plaintiff, or to being targeted as third-party witnesses," and thus non-party policyholders "have an interest in not being engaged in this lawsuit unnecessarily." The Plaintiff responds that the Defendants' assertions are without merit, as a Protective Order has been entered in this matter and the discovery requests concern insurer estimates and claims handling notes, not personal information of the insureds. Judge Wang respectfully concludes that the Defendants' arguments concerning non-party interests are speculative. There is no present indication in the briefing or on the docket that any specifically identified non-parties would be burdened if discovery were to proceed in this matter. Additionally, she cannot conclude that the possibility that a non-party may be required to participate in some aspect of discovery would be so burdensome on the non-party so as to warrant a stay of discovery in this matter. To so find would render this factor meaningless because the party seeking a stay in any case could offer the same generalized argument." III. Conclusion For all of these reasons, Judge Wang finds no basis to depart from well-settled authority in the District that disfavors stays pending the resolution of a dispositive motion. Weighing the interests of the Parties, the Court, the non-parties, and the general public, Judge Wang concludes that a stay of discovery is not warranted. Accordingly, she denied the Motion to Stay. A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wkpbhf7z from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Officer May File 2nd Amended Complaint v. Air Force ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, AIR FORCE OFFICER, Plaintiff v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; FRANK KENDALL, III, individually and his official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and ROBERT I. MILLER, individually and his official capacity as Surgeon General of the Air Force, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:22-CV-00009-tes (M.D. Ga.), Judge Tilman E. Self, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, issued an Omnibus Order granting: a. the Plaintiff's leave to file her Second Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2); and b. the Additional Representatives' Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously. I. Background On Feb. 15, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff, a United States Air Force officer, a preliminary injunction preventing the United States Air Force from taking any adverse action against her for refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. It issued the injunction because it found that the Air Force's blanket vaccine mandate and legally lacking religious accommodation program likely violated her rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court did not require the Air Force to grant the Plaintiff any specific religious accommodation; rather, it merely ruled -- preliminarily -- that the military could not enforce its mandatory vaccination requirement against her. Based on that ruling, the Plaintiff subsequently filed her First Amended Complaint to transform this single-plaintiff lawsuit into a class action. The Defendants have moved to strike this amended complaint because the Plaintiff didn't receive their written consent or the Court's leave. The Plaintiff responds by saying that she doesn't need their written consent or the Court's leave because she has the right to amend as a matter of course. Not long after filing her First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Naturally, at this juncture, the Court has to decide which one is operative: The Plaintiff's original Complaint, her First Amended Complaint, or her Second Amended Class Action Complaint. II. Discussion A. Plaintiff's Operative Complaint The Defendants have moved to strike the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, and their motion is but one of ten pending motions. Resolving the Rule 15-based issues surrounding the Plaintiff's amendments to her Complaint clears the path for a much more effective resolution of the remaining nine. Rule 15 provides two ways for parties in federal court to amend a pleading before trial. One way is by amending as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1). A party can amend a pleading "once as a matter of course" (or right) during either of two distinct and separate periods: (1) within 21 days of serving it or (2) within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Other than amendments "as a matter of course," the second and only other way to amend a pleading before trial comes from the "other amendments" provision found in Rule 15(a)(2). That provision says, "in all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." The obvious starting point under a "matter of course" amendment is to determine which one of the two "service" dates apply to kick-start the 21-day periods. The Plaintiff successfully served each Defendant on Jan. 7, 2022. So, to amend her pleading "as a matter of course" within 21 days of serving it, the Plaintiff -- applying Rule 6(a)(1)(C) -- had until Jan. 31, 2022, to do so. Thus, according to the Defendants, the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on Feb. 28, 2022, fell outside the 21-day period in Rule 15(a)(1)(A). About the 21-day period under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), the 21-day period starts when a plaintiff's opponent serves a responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). In the present case, the Defendants have yet to file any responsive pleading or one of the designated Rule 12(b) motions, so they contend that the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on Feb. 28, 2022, isn't properly filed under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) either. Continuing their line of reasoning, the Defendants argue that since Rule 15(a)(1) doesn't apply, all the Plaintiff is left with is the "other amendments" provision under Rule 15(a)(2). However, the Defendants argue that because the Plaintiff failed to obtain either their written consent or "the court's leave," she didn't comply with Rule 15(a)(2) so that her First Amended Complaint should be stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The Court would likely be hard-pressed to find an interpretation of Rule 15 that differs from the Defendants'. Their interpretation presents a textualist reading of Rule 15, but the Plaintiff disagrees with it. She takes the position that she had the right to file the First Amended Complaint "any time before" the Defendants filed a responsive pleading or appropriate Rule 12(b) motion. On top of that argument, the Plaintiff tries to defeat the Defendants' attempt to strike her First Amended Complaint on the basis that their use of Rule 12(f) isn't at all proper. Judge Self finds that the Plaintiff's leave-seeking motion is styled as a "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint"; thus, looking at just the title of her motion, she obviously wants her Second Amended Class Action Complaint to be the operative complaint at the end of the day. Whether she amends her First Amended Complaint or her original Complaint (if the Court struck her First Amended Complaint) really doesn't matter. What does matter is that she has properly asked the Court for permission to file a new amended complaint, and the Court will consider that request. Again, regardless of whether the First Amended Complaint ever controlled, the Plaintiff undeniably wants the Second Amended Class Action Complaint to be the pleading that controls in the case. In any event, the Defendants' standing arguments are better suited for briefing regarding class certification as opposed to inclusion in a motion to strike an entire pleading. The case is still in its very early stages. Based on that and the stated reasons, Judge Self grants the Plaintiff leave so that she may file her "Second Amended Class Action Complaint." Only upon its re-filing (not as an exhibit attached to her motion) will it render her Complaint and the First Amended Complaint (to the extent the latter ever controlled) no longer operative. In light of the Court's freely given leave, Judge Self need not consider the Plaintiff's discontent with the Defendants' use of Rule 12(f) as a means to strike her First Amended Complaint. He denies their Motion to Strike as moot. B. Briefing Schedule Even though the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal of the Court's grant of a preliminary injunction, Judge Self exercises his discretion and denies their motion so that its preliminarily granted relief can remain intact. He says, the delay presented by the Defendants' appeal of the Court's grant of a preliminary injunction could potentially span several years, and he sees no reason why the class representatives whom the Plaintiff adds via her Second Amended Class Action Complaint should not be able to obtain the preliminary relief she has been awarded -- if they can independently meet the requirements for such relief. In exercising the discretion afforded to him, Judge Self will allow the case to proceed especially given the motion before the Court seeking class certification for similarly situated individuals. If the putative class is certified (or if other courts certify classes that are ultimately consolidated into multi-district litigation proceedings), all of the Plaintiffs will be on the same footing, and their claims can ultimately be heard together. Plus, the Eleventh Circuit could always choose to stay the case as well as the current preliminary injunction while the Defendants pursue their appeal. Accordingly, Judge Self lifts the Court's previously imposed stay related to briefing for the motions listed, and orders the following briefing schedule: a. Regarding the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel, their Supplemental Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction, and the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's original class-certification/appointment-of-class-counsel motion and class-wide preliminary injunction motion, the Plaintiffs may (if they choose to do so) merge the arguments contained in the Plaintiff's original and their supplemental class-certification, appointment-of-class-counsel, and class-wide preliminary injunction motions into new, consolidated motions by May 12, 2022. In other words, the Plaintiffs may merge the contents from their Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Counsel and her Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction with their Supplemental Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel and Supplemental Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction, so that the Court doesn't have to cull multiple documents to ensure that it has considered all of the pertinent arguments. b. The Defendants will have 21 days to respond to both motions. c. The Plaintiffs will have 14 days to reply to the Defendants' responses. C. Leave to Proceed Anonymously As to the case's original plaintiff, the Court previously granted her leave to proceed anonymously. The additional representatives named in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint seek that same leave. Given that the Defendants "take no position" on whether the additional representatives should be allowed to proceed anonymously, Judge Self sees no reason to treat them any differently. Thus, he grants the Additional Representatives' Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously. III. Conclusion Consistent with his stated rulings, Judge Self ordered as follows: (1) The Plaintiff's leave to file her Second Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) is granted. (2) The Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is denied as moot. (3) The Defendants' Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal is denied, and the briefing stay previously imposed is lifted. (4) The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Counsel and Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction are denied as moot. (5) The Plaintiffs may merge the arguments contained in their original and supplemental class-certification motions, appointment-of-class-counsel motions, and class-wide preliminary injunction motions into a new, single motion, but they must do so by May 12, 2022. The Court's regular briefing schedule will follow. (6) The Additional Representatives' Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Omnibus Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2kkz5s from Leagle.com. VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Riviera Beach Suit Over Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. VERTIV HOLDINGS CO, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03572 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of persons and entities that: (a) purchased shares of Vertiv's Class A common stock between February 24, 2021, and February 23, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) purchased Vertiv shares in or traceable to the Company's secondary public offering of Class A common stock conducted on or around November 4, 2021. The claims asserted herein are alleged against Vertiv and certain of the Company's officers, members of Vertiv's Board of Directors, including the directors that signed the Registration Statement for the SPO, the Selling Shareholders, and the underwriters of the SPO, and arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, Vertiv repeatedly touted its robust pricing capabilities, which purportedly enabled it to improve the Company's operating margins even in the face of constrained supply chains. For example. the Company repeatedly touted that its "procurement and pricing initiatives drove contribution margin improvement." Even as the Company felt increasing inflationary and supply chain pressures, it continued to assure investors that its "pricing initiatives have continued to yield favorable results." While the Company also acknowledged the rising cost of raw materials, it assured investors that it would maintain and even grow margins by passing along those costs to its customers, says the suit. In the Offering Materials issued in connection with the SPO and throughout the Class Period, Vertiv made these same representations, stating "margin improved primarily due to fixed cost savings and contribution margin improvements (volume leverage, operation productivity, and pricing)" in its Form 10-Q for the first quarter 2021 which was expressly incorporated by reference into the Offering Materials. The SPO closed on or about November 4, 2021, and VPE Holdings, LLC ultimately sold 20 million shares of Vertiv Class A common stock at $24.83 per share, reaping over $496 million in gross proceeds. Contrary to the Company's representations, however, Vertiv's "pricing initiatives" were ineffective and the Company's sales force was not capable of driving higher pricing and passing costs on to customers. Instead, the sales team had resorted to discounting in order to drive sales and build the Company's backlog, which resulted in lower margins and profitability. The truth began to emerge on February 23, 2022, when Vertiv released dismal financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2021. That day, analysts published that the Company's reported adjusted operating income was 43% below the low end of management's own guidance range and profits missed by 45% on weak margins. Analysts were shocked by the Company's poor earnings announcement, with analysts from Deutsche Bank Research reporting that "a miss of this magnitude warranted a pre- announcement." Wolfe research reported that "In our 17 years of covering industrials we can't recall a drawdown of this magnitude, even during the [Great Financial Crisis]" and that "management credibility is completely shot." As a result of these disclosures, the price of Vertiv stock declined by $7.19 per share, or over 36%. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's shares, Plaintiff and putative Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Plaintiff and putative Class members seek damages for redress, reasonable attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Riviera Beach provides retirement benefits to eligible general employees of the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. Vertiv designs, manufactures, and services critical digital infrastructure technologies and life cycle services for data centers, communication networks, and commercial and industrial environments. Vertiv offers software solutions as well as a range of hardware solutions to its customers throughout the global data center industry. In connection with its hardware business, Vertiv engages in manufacturing and global supply chain logistics that are susceptible to cost fluctuation deriving from the inflation of material, manufacturing, and supply chain pricing. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company. The Defendants include ROB JOHNSON, DAVID FALLON, JASON FORCIER, GARY NIEDERPRUEM, DAVID COTE, JOSEPH VAN DOKKUM, ROGER FRADIN, JACOB KOTZUBEI, MATTHEW LOUIE, EDWARD L. MONSER, STEVEN S. REINEMUND, ROBIN L. WASHINGTON, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., VPE HOLDINGS, LLC, VERTIV JV HOLDINGS LLC, PE VERTIV HOLDINGS LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY, LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS MANAGER, LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTCO, L.P., EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS IC (CAYMAN), LLC, PLATINUM INVESTCO (CAYMAN), LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS III, LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS MANAGER III, LLC, and TOM GORES.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com WEST COAST: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Garcia Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO RAMOS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public of California, v. WEST COAST CONTAINER SERVICES; CHARLES SAPIEN; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22LBCV00201 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 4, 2022) alleges that the Defendants made unlawful deductions from plaintiff's remuneration and failed to reimburse him for business expenses including GPS, liability insurance, fuel, and mileage. Also, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay separate compensation for rest periods and nonproductive time (including, but not limited to, conducting vehicle inspections, waiting to be dispatched, waiting time between loads, waiting time to pick up a load, loading and unloading time, travel time from the final delivery or drop-off location, fueling, etc.); failed to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked, including but not limited to nonproductive time; failed to provide required meal and rest periods; failed to pay overtime compensation for the overtime hours he worked; willfully failed to pay all wages owed that has separated from his employment; and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements by failing to include the information required by Labor Code section 226(a). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an employee driver paid on a piece rate basis. West Coast offers rail container deliveries throughout California, Arizona and Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. TELLERIA, TELLERIA & LEVY, LLP 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 387-3400 Facsimile: (213) 387-7872 E-mail: ajenkinssg@gmail.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 ***